Author Topic: On marrying a second wife  (Read 38984 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #90 on: June 25, 2016, 08:39:31 AM »
Therefore, if a divorced woman, who has been separated (from her husband) in soul as well as body, through discord, anger, hatred, and the causes of these— injury, or contumely, or whatsoever cause of complaint— is bound to a personal enemy, not to say a husband, how much more will one who, neither by her own nor her husband's fault, but by an event resulting from the Lord's law, has been— not separated from, but left behind by— her consort, be his, even when dead, to whom, even when dead, she owes (the debt of) concord? From him from whom she has heard no (word of) divorce she does not turn away; with him she is, to whom she has written no (document of) divorce; him whom she was unwilling to have lost, she retains. She has within her the licence of the mind, which represents to a man, in imaginary enjoyment, all things which he has not.

In short, I ask the woman herself, "Tell me, sister, have you sent your husband before you (to his rest) in peace?" What will she answer? (Will she say), "In discord?" In that case she is the more bound to him with whom she has a cause (to plead) at the bar of God. She who is bound (to another) has not departed (from him). But (will she say), "In peace?" In that case, she must necessarily persevere in that (peace) with him whom she will no longer have the power to divorce; not that she would, even if she had been able to divorce him, have been marriageable. Indeed, she prays for his soul, and requests refreshment for him meanwhile, and fellowship (with him) in the first resurrection; and she offers (her sacrifice) on the anniversaries of his falling asleep. For, unless she does these deeds, she has in the true sense divorced him, so far as in her lies; and indeed the more iniquitously— inasmuch as (she did it) as far as was in her power— because she had no power (to do it); and with the more indignity, inasmuch as it is with more indignity if (her reason for doing it is) because he did not deserve it.

Or else shall we, pray, cease to be after death, according to (the teaching of) some Epicurus, and not according to (that of) Christ? But if we believe the resurrection of the dead, of course we shall be bound to them with whom we are destined to rise, to render an account the one of the other. But if;in that age they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be equal to angels; is not the fact that there will be no restitution of the conjugal relation a reason why we shall not be bound to our departed consorts? Nay, but the more shall we be bound (to them), because we are destined to a better estate— destined (as we are) to rise to a spiritual consortship, to recognise as well our own selves as them who are ours. Else how shall we sing thanks to God to eternity, if there shall remain in us no sense and memory of this debt; if we shall be re-formed in substance, not in consciousness?

Consequently, we who shall be with God shall be together; since we shall all be with the one God— albeit the wages be various, albeit there be many mansions, in the house of the same Father having laboured for the one penny of the self-same hire, that is, of eternal life; in which (eternal life) God will still less separate them whom He has conjoined, than in this lesser life He forbids them to be separated.


Tertullian, On Monogamy X

It seems to me based on this, the Church, at least where Tertullian was, has not seen that marriage "ends" with the departed spouse.

His view on marriage is directly derived from montanism. Montanism had an ethical rigorism and asceticism. These included prohibitions against remarriage following divorce or the death of a spouse.

I grant you that this is possibly the case, but because there is no "till death do us part" in Eastern Christianity, there is a very important significance in what he says, and I think it's very Orthodox and Catholic.  There is no more "death" but a departure.  Therefore, if we say our spouse is dead, we are speaking against the grace of the Resurrection.  Our spouse is sleeping is the more appropriate gesture.  Furthermore, if marriage emulates Christ and the Church, it is an eternal relationship.  If the one I marry makes me love Christ more and grow into Christ, how much more would that eternal relationship be!

So...it's one of those moments where this quotes speaks to a Christian mindset of his time.

No it speaks to the montanist heresy and their errors.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2016, 08:42:23 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #91 on: June 25, 2016, 09:13:56 AM »
Most explicitly:

St Augustine

"She will cease to be the wife of a former one, however, if that husband should die, not if he commit fornication"

The emphasis on "living spouse" is to show that even though you are separated, a sacramental marriage still persists. Hence to marry while your sacramental marriage still exists is adultery (the fathers and scripture call such a person an adulterer/adulterous). It's isn't adultery when your spouse is dead i.e. the sacramental marriage is over.

Again, that has nothing to say about whether the relationship between two spouses is terminated by the death of one.
Point blank it means the marriage is over and the person is unmarried.

No, that's not point black what it means.
Yeah you're right, it's not point black, it's point blank what it means

Quote
Quote
A married person cannot marry again while married lest they commit adultery.

That's what this is about.
I'm not sure you know what "lest" means

It indicates a prevention of something. "Lest" does not mean "unless"

So YES that's what it's about

Quote
Quote
Quote
It only talks about the circumstances in which a person who was once married might marry a second time. 
Once married... Meaning they aren't married anymore.

NO.

Quote
I Corinthians 7

8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
He says it is well for them to, not that they have to, not marry but they can. Paul didn't make any new rule here. He gives advice within the confines of the rule of Chirst that he highlights. This quote defeats your whole point. What he is saying is contained in the very essence of the rule of marriage that you are released at death and free to marry again but he says it's better you don't.

Quote
39 A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives.
"Until death do us part" ;)

Quote
the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
Free from him I.e marriage bond is dissolved the way God intended. Sacramental marriage is over. So she is free to marry again.  Again this is the plain law of Chirst which only the Catholic Church still upholds

Quote
40 But in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I have the Spirit of God.
See again he works within the rule. He just advises celibacy as an opinion of his. He is not saying it's a rule. Therefore him saying the should marry is still within the confines of the rule which he highlighted as he himself says when the husband dies the wife is free to marry who she wants.


Quote
The allowance for a second marriage is due to human weakness: "it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion".  It's not because "Well, my spouse died, so we no longer have any relationship between us".
There is no allowance here. He is giving an opinion on how to work within the rules of the law. If this is the basis Orthodoxy uses to break divine law then it's basis is incorrect. Paul is giving an opinion o what to do after the end of sacramental marriage as he says "in my judgement...". But heresy justifies itself through eisegesis. This is not new.

Quote
Quote
The reason why you can't marry while your spouse is alive is because you are still married to them in the eyes of God,hence its adulterous to take another partner as that would be cheating (adultery).

Death has no power over God, so it can't change God's mind about who is or isn't married.
Exactly and God said it ends at death as Paul highlighted when he recounts the law. Further Christ himself emphasized that we will be like the Angels in heaven who do not marry (that is to say single and devoted to God alone). Marriage is here to teach us how to love so we may be ready to devote ourselves to God in the next and be married to Him.

Quote
Quote
A single person can't commit adultery hence it is allowed upon the death of a spouse (sacramental marriage is ended and the person is now single) to marry again.

What other sacraments end with death?  Your Church specifically teaches that ordination survives death, schism, heresy, etc.  It's a little too convenient for sacramental marriage to disappear upon death when other sacraments survive death and worse.
It's not our choice it's the rule of God and no man can change that although the Orthodox would like to think so (quoting binding and loosing and the imaginary allowance of Paul which isn't an allowance at all, as justification)

Quote
Quote
Quote
If a woman marries, is widowed, and never marries again, it doesn't mean she is unmarried.   

It means exactly that

Only if you prioritise law over grace and death over life.
We priorotise the law of God above all.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2016, 09:21:24 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,530
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #92 on: June 25, 2016, 01:30:21 PM »
Most explicitly:

St Augustine

"She will cease to be the wife of a former one, however, if that husband should die, not if he commit fornication"

The emphasis on "living spouse" is to show that even though you are separated, a sacramental marriage still persists. Hence to marry while your sacramental marriage still exists is adultery (the fathers and scripture call such a person an adulterer/adulterous). It's isn't adultery when your spouse is dead i.e. the sacramental marriage is over.

Again, that has nothing to say about whether the relationship between two spouses is terminated by the death of one.
Point blank it means the marriage is over and the person is unmarried.

No, that's not point black what it means.
Yeah you're right, it's not point black, it's point blank what it means

Cute, but still wrong. 

Quote
Quote
Quote
A married person cannot marry again while married lest they commit adultery.

That's what this is about.
I'm not sure you know what "lest" means

It indicates a prevention of something. "Lest" does not mean "unless"

So YES that's what it's about

I never said "lest" meant "unless". 

What I'm getting at is that the spousal relationship survives death.  Any allowance for another marriage is a matter of economy.  In your Church, you seem to believe that it is a right. 

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
It only talks about the circumstances in which a person who was once married might marry a second time. 
Once married... Meaning they aren't married anymore.

NO.

Quote
I Corinthians 7

8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
He says it is well for them to, not that they have to, not marry but they can. Paul didn't make any new rule here. He gives advice within the confines of the rule of Chirst that he highlights. This quote defeats your whole point. What he is saying is contained in the very essence of the rule of marriage that you are released at death and free to marry again but he says it's better you don't.

What are you released from, Wandile?  You're released from "legal" obligations.  But marriage is not primarily about law. 

Quote
Quote
39 A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives.
"Until death do us part" ;)

Quote
the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
Free from him I.e marriage bond is dissolved the way God intended. Sacramental marriage is over. So she is free to marry again.  Again this is the plain law of Chirst which only the Catholic Church still upholds

Since we're correcting each other's words, this is the second time you referred to our Lord as "Chirst".  I gave you a pass the first time, but this is too much.

Anyway, again, you are reading "sacramental marriage is over" (and your own peculiar definition of what that is) into the text.  The "legal" obligations of marriage end with death.  To stretch that to mean that sacramental marriage ends with death is just that--a stretch.  Every other sacrament survives death according to your Church, why would marriage be an exception? 

Quote
Quote
40 But in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I have the Spirit of God.
See again he works within the rule. He just advises celibacy as an opinion of his. He is not saying it's a rule. Therefore him saying the should marry is still within the confines of the rule which he highlighted as he himself says when the husband dies the wife is free to marry who she wants.

He offers a judgement and describes it as the judgement of someone who "has the Spirit of God".  Elsewhere in the passage, he is able to make the distinction between his personal opinion and what he believes comes from God.  "I have the Spirit of God" is a bit stronger than "This is what I think, take it or leave it". 


Quote
Quote
The allowance for a second marriage is due to human weakness: "it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion".  It's not because "Well, my spouse died, so we no longer have any relationship between us".
There is no allowance here. He is giving an opinion on how to work within the rules of the law. If this is the basis Orthodoxy uses to break divine law then it's basis is incorrect. Paul is giving an opinion o what to do after the end of sacramental marriage as he says "in my judgement...". But heresy justifies itself through eisegesis. This is not new.

Only a RC would choose to read St Paul as a canon lawyer rather than as a shepherd of souls. 

Quote
Quote
Quote
The reason why you can't marry while your spouse is alive is because you are still married to them in the eyes of God,hence its adulterous to take another partner as that would be cheating (adultery).

Death has no power over God, so it can't change God's mind about who is or isn't married.
Exactly and God said it ends at death as Paul highlighted when he recounts the law. Further Christ himself emphasized that we will be like the Angels in heaven who do not marry (that is to say single and devoted to God alone). Marriage is here to teach us how to love so we may be ready to devote ourselves to God in the next and be married to Him.

There is no marrying or giving in marriage in heaven, but that doesn't mean that the relationship begun here ends there.  In heaven, Wandile is still his mother's son, his father's son, his wife's husband, etc.  Those relationships are not lived there the way they are lived here, but they survive death. 

Quote
Quote
Quote
A single person can't commit adultery hence it is allowed upon the death of a spouse (sacramental marriage is ended and the person is now single) to marry again.

What other sacraments end with death?  Your Church specifically teaches that ordination survives death, schism, heresy, etc.  It's a little too convenient for sacramental marriage to disappear upon death when other sacraments survive death and worse.
It's not our choice it's the rule of God and no man can change that although the Orthodox would like to think so (quoting binding and loosing and the imaginary allowance of Paul which isn't an allowance at all, as justification)

I realise that you need to reinforce your views with a good dose of RC triumphalism to justify continuing in your faith now that your Pope routinely undermines your Church's truth claims (for instance, he believes cohabitation is a grace-filled marriage while most sacramental marriages are null), but spare us. 

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
If a woman marries, is widowed, and never marries again, it doesn't mean she is unmarried.   

It means exactly that

Only if you prioritise law over grace and death over life.
We priorotise priortise a bastardised corruption of the law of God above all.

Fixed.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,196
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #93 on: June 25, 2016, 02:16:09 PM »
Therefore, if a divorced woman, who has been separated (from her husband) in soul as well as body, through discord, anger, hatred, and the causes of these— injury, or contumely, or whatsoever cause of complaint— is bound to a personal enemy, not to say a husband, how much more will one who, neither by her own nor her husband's fault, but by an event resulting from the Lord's law, has been— not separated from, but left behind by— her consort, be his, even when dead, to whom, even when dead, she owes (the debt of) concord? From him from whom she has heard no (word of) divorce she does not turn away; with him she is, to whom she has written no (document of) divorce; him whom she was unwilling to have lost, she retains. She has within her the licence of the mind, which represents to a man, in imaginary enjoyment, all things which he has not.

In short, I ask the woman herself, "Tell me, sister, have you sent your husband before you (to his rest) in peace?" What will she answer? (Will she say), "In discord?" In that case she is the more bound to him with whom she has a cause (to plead) at the bar of God. She who is bound (to another) has not departed (from him). But (will she say), "In peace?" In that case, she must necessarily persevere in that (peace) with him whom she will no longer have the power to divorce; not that she would, even if she had been able to divorce him, have been marriageable. Indeed, she prays for his soul, and requests refreshment for him meanwhile, and fellowship (with him) in the first resurrection; and she offers (her sacrifice) on the anniversaries of his falling asleep. For, unless she does these deeds, she has in the true sense divorced him, so far as in her lies; and indeed the more iniquitously— inasmuch as (she did it) as far as was in her power— because she had no power (to do it); and with the more indignity, inasmuch as it is with more indignity if (her reason for doing it is) because he did not deserve it.

Or else shall we, pray, cease to be after death, according to (the teaching of) some Epicurus, and not according to (that of) Christ? But if we believe the resurrection of the dead, of course we shall be bound to them with whom we are destined to rise, to render an account the one of the other. But if;in that age they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be equal to angels; is not the fact that there will be no restitution of the conjugal relation a reason why we shall not be bound to our departed consorts? Nay, but the more shall we be bound (to them), because we are destined to a better estate— destined (as we are) to rise to a spiritual consortship, to recognise as well our own selves as them who are ours. Else how shall we sing thanks to God to eternity, if there shall remain in us no sense and memory of this debt; if we shall be re-formed in substance, not in consciousness?

Consequently, we who shall be with God shall be together; since we shall all be with the one God— albeit the wages be various, albeit there be many mansions, in the house of the same Father having laboured for the one penny of the self-same hire, that is, of eternal life; in which (eternal life) God will still less separate them whom He has conjoined, than in this lesser life He forbids them to be separated.


Tertullian, On Monogamy X

It seems to me based on this, the Church, at least where Tertullian was, has not seen that marriage "ends" with the departed spouse.

His view on marriage is directly derived from montanism. Montanism had an ethical rigorism and asceticism. These included prohibitions against remarriage following divorce or the death of a spouse.

I grant you that this is possibly the case, but because there is no "till death do us part" in Eastern Christianity, there is a very important significance in what he says, and I think it's very Orthodox and Catholic.  There is no more "death" but a departure.  Therefore, if we say our spouse is dead, we are speaking against the grace of the Resurrection.  Our spouse is sleeping is the more appropriate gesture.  Furthermore, if marriage emulates Christ and the Church, it is an eternal relationship.  If the one I marry makes me love Christ more and grow into Christ, how much more would that eternal relationship be!

So...it's one of those moments where this quotes speaks to a Christian mindset of his time.

No it speaks to the montanist heresy and their errors.

Was St. John Chrysostom a Montanist?
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #94 on: June 26, 2016, 07:23:38 AM »
Therefore, if a divorced woman, who has been separated (from her husband) in soul as well as body, through discord, anger, hatred, and the causes of these— injury, or contumely, or whatsoever cause of complaint— is bound to a personal enemy, not to say a husband, how much more will one who, neither by her own nor her husband's fault, but by an event resulting from the Lord's law, has been— not separated from, but left behind by— her consort, be his, even when dead, to whom, even when dead, she owes (the debt of) concord? From him from whom she has heard no (word of) divorce she does not turn away; with him she is, to whom she has written no (document of) divorce; him whom she was unwilling to have lost, she retains. She has within her the licence of the mind, which represents to a man, in imaginary enjoyment, all things which he has not.

In short, I ask the woman herself, "Tell me, sister, have you sent your husband before you (to his rest) in peace?" What will she answer? (Will she say), "In discord?" In that case she is the more bound to him with whom she has a cause (to plead) at the bar of God. She who is bound (to another) has not departed (from him). But (will she say), "In peace?" In that case, she must necessarily persevere in that (peace) with him whom she will no longer have the power to divorce; not that she would, even if she had been able to divorce him, have been marriageable. Indeed, she prays for his soul, and requests refreshment for him meanwhile, and fellowship (with him) in the first resurrection; and she offers (her sacrifice) on the anniversaries of his falling asleep. For, unless she does these deeds, she has in the true sense divorced him, so far as in her lies; and indeed the more iniquitously— inasmuch as (she did it) as far as was in her power— because she had no power (to do it); and with the more indignity, inasmuch as it is with more indignity if (her reason for doing it is) because he did not deserve it.

Or else shall we, pray, cease to be after death, according to (the teaching of) some Epicurus, and not according to (that of) Christ? But if we believe the resurrection of the dead, of course we shall be bound to them with whom we are destined to rise, to render an account the one of the other. But if;in that age they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be equal to angels; is not the fact that there will be no restitution of the conjugal relation a reason why we shall not be bound to our departed consorts? Nay, but the more shall we be bound (to them), because we are destined to a better estate— destined (as we are) to rise to a spiritual consortship, to recognise as well our own selves as them who are ours. Else how shall we sing thanks to God to eternity, if there shall remain in us no sense and memory of this debt; if we shall be re-formed in substance, not in consciousness?

Consequently, we who shall be with God shall be together; since we shall all be with the one God— albeit the wages be various, albeit there be many mansions, in the house of the same Father having laboured for the one penny of the self-same hire, that is, of eternal life; in which (eternal life) God will still less separate them whom He has conjoined, than in this lesser life He forbids them to be separated.


Tertullian, On Monogamy X

It seems to me based on this, the Church, at least where Tertullian was, has not seen that marriage "ends" with the departed spouse.

His view on marriage is directly derived from montanism. Montanism had an ethical rigorism and asceticism. These included prohibitions against remarriage following divorce or the death of a spouse.

I grant you that this is possibly the case, but because there is no "till death do us part" in Eastern Christianity, there is a very important significance in what he says, and I think it's very Orthodox and Catholic.  There is no more "death" but a departure.  Therefore, if we say our spouse is dead, we are speaking against the grace of the Resurrection.  Our spouse is sleeping is the more appropriate gesture.  Furthermore, if marriage emulates Christ and the Church, it is an eternal relationship.  If the one I marry makes me love Christ more and grow into Christ, how much more would that eternal relationship be!

So...it's one of those moments where this quotes speaks to a Christian mindset of his time.

No it speaks to the montanist heresy and their errors.

Was St. John Chrysostom a Montanist?

No but if he held this position then he slipped into one of their errors. The fathers aren't infallible. Minority should be harmonized into the majority.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #95 on: June 26, 2016, 08:12:14 AM »
Most explicitly:

St Augustine

"She will cease to be the wife of a former one, however, if that husband should die, not if he commit fornication"

The emphasis on "living spouse" is to show that even though you are separated, a sacramental marriage still persists. Hence to marry while your sacramental marriage still exists is adultery (the fathers and scripture call such a person an adulterer/adulterous). It's isn't adultery when your spouse is dead i.e. the sacramental marriage is over.

Again, that has nothing to say about whether the relationship between two spouses is terminated by the death of one.
Point blank it means the marriage is over and the person is unmarried.

No, that's not point black what it means.
Yeah you're right, it's not point black, it's point blank what it means

Cute, but still wrong.
It's cute you think you're right when all evidence is against you. Ah the beauty of pride. Unwilling to admit when you're wrong even when the case has been made against you.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
A married person cannot marry again while married lest they commit adultery.

That's what this is about.
I'm not sure you know what "lest" means

It indicates a prevention of something. "Lest" does not mean "unless"

So YES that's what it's about

I never said "lest" meant "unless". 

What I'm getting at is that the spousal relationship survives death.  Any allowance for another marriage is a matter of economy.

What you're getting at is heresy. The fathers and scripture and even St Paul himself say it ends at death. Any other marriage after death is not ekonomia, it's allowed as the person is single. That is contained in the law espoused by Christ and Paul. The fathers say time and time again but you just pretend to be blind. Those with ears don't hear and those with eyes don't see. Denial seems to be your best friend.

Quote
In your Church, you seem to believe that it is a right.
Yes the Church Christ , following in his teaching, allow for it as it is not a breach of law but rather within the law and allowed by the law itself not some "economia" which is just a fancy word used to break divine Law and allow sin (remarriage while your spouse lives)

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
It only talks about the circumstances in which a person who was once married might marry a second time. 
Once married... Meaning they aren't married anymore.

NO.

Quote
I Corinthians 7

8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
He says it is well for them to, not that they have to, not marry but they can. Paul didn't make any new rule here. He gives advice within the confines of the rule of Chirst that he highlights. This quote defeats your whole point. What he is saying is contained in the very essence of the rule of marriage that you are released at death and free to marry again but he says it's better you don't.

What are you released from, Wandile?
From the marriage bond itself as it is dissolved at death as he says.

Quote
You're released from "legal" obligations.
You are released from the sacramental marriage and all the obligations that come with it as you can't be held to a marriage that doesn't exist anymore. Although you guys believe so which is the craziness of error.

Quote
But marriage is not primarily about law.
But it is governed by one. The law of God and says it ends at death. Now you guys clasp to montanist heresy as justification for your position. Not surprising as I've see the EO use all manner of heresies to justify their errors.

Quote
Quote
Quote
39 A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives.
"Until death do us part" ;)

Quote
the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
Free from him I.e marriage bond is dissolved the way God intended. Sacramental marriage is over. So she is free to marry again.  Again this is the plain law of Chirst which only the Catholic Church still upholds

Since we're correcting each other's words, this is the second time you referred to our Lord as "Chirst".  I gave you a pass the first time, but this is too much.
Why thank you  :) my predictive text fails me often.

Quote
Anyway, again, you are reading "sacramental marriage is over" (and your own peculiar definition of what that is) into the text.
No that is actually what it's talking about as it speaks of being married in the Lord. That is the sacrament of marriage itself

Quote
The "legal" obligations of marriage end with death.  To stretch that to mean that sacramental marriage ends with death is just that--a stretch.
There is no difference between the law and sacrament as the very sacrament is intertwined and governed by it. This seperation allows you guys to transmit the errors you do. The sacrament has rules to it and scripture and the fathers say that marriage (not obligations only) itself end at death.

Quote
Every other sacrament survives death according to your Church, why would marriage be an exception?
It isn't. It's gets its fulfilled in your marriage to God in heaven for all eternity. It's a type for the fullest expression of the sacrament in heaven when we shall be like the angels who do not marry but are united to God alone.

Quote
Quote
Quote
40 But in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I have the Spirit of God.
See again he works within the rule. He just advises celibacy as an opinion of his. He is not saying it's a rule. Therefore him saying the should marry is still within the confines of the rule which he highlighted as he himself says when the husband dies the wife is free to marry who she wants.

He offers a judgement and describes it as the judgement of someone who "has the Spirit of God". 
It isn't a rule and no fathers teach this except one or two. The rule is plain as he said, it ends at death. Paul had no authority to innovate a law. He was thus giving an opinion. Hence he says "it is better ..." Not "you must not..."

Quote
Elsewhere in the passage, he is able to make the distinction between his personal opinion and what he believes comes from God.  "I have the Spirit of God" is a bit stronger than "This is what I think, take it or leave it". 
The spirit of God is not a precursor for giving a law it means inspiration of what is pleasing to God. Hence his opinion is right, it is better to remain celibate but this is not Law. The law is inviolable, an opinion is not... And he demonstrates this immediately after by saying that you can go against his advice and marry. With your economia you can justify a breach of the 10 commandments or any law of God for that matter under the guise of "binding and loosing". The seeds of heresy never leave any teaching unaltered.

Quote
Quote
Quote
The allowance for a second marriage is due to human weakness: "it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion".  It's not because "Well, my spouse died, so we no longer have any relationship between us".
There is no allowance here. He is giving an opinion on how to work within the rules of the law. If this is the basis Orthodoxy uses to break divine law then it's basis is incorrect. Paul is giving an opinion o what to do after the end of sacramental marriage as he says "in my judgement...". But heresy justifies itself through eisegesis. This is not new.

Only a RC would choose to read St Paul as a canon lawyer rather than as a shepherd of souls.
No only a person held within heretical opinions would not see the truth of the law laid bare. Instead as all In error, they seek an "out" from the law under the guise of love and compassion. The pathway to hell is paved with good intentions.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
The reason why you can't marry while your spouse is alive is because you are still married to them in the eyes of God,hence its adulterous to take another partner as that would be cheating (adultery).

Death has no power over God, so it can't change God's mind about who is or isn't married.
Exactly and God said it ends at death as Paul highlighted when he recounts the law. Further Christ himself emphasized that we will be like the Angels in heaven who do not marry (that is to say single and devoted to God alone). Marriage is here to teach us how to love so we may be ready to devote ourselves to God in the next and be married to Him.

There is no marrying or giving in marriage in heaven, but that doesn't mean that the relationship begun here ends there.  In heaven, Wandile is still his mother's son, his father's son, his wife's husband, etc.  Those relationships are not lived there the way they are lived here, but they survive death.

Having a relationship is different to saying marriage exists. You can keep a bond of love for theother person because of your journey on earth together and how you helped each other deify. Your parents are your parents because of your birth on earth to them. You wife can be said to be your wife because of your marriage on earth. But the actualmarriage itself is dissolved and replaced anew with one with God. All names we give to people here are in respect of our relationships on earth/temporal relationships. Our eternal unity is found in God alone. He is our Proper Father, Our proper spouse , Our proper Borther, Our proper family. It is from him who we come and from him to whom we return. Our relationships here serve as a way for us to learn how to love God in eternity. They are types of the relationship we will have with God. Any name that still exists with respect to a person you interacted with on earth is not in respect of eternity (for that belongs to God alone) but to our temporal experience on earth. These things do not linger on in heaven by what they are but get fulfilled and completed in God.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
A single person can't commit adultery hence it is allowed upon the death of a spouse (sacramental marriage is ended and the person is now single) to marry again.

What other sacraments end with death?  Your Church specifically teaches that ordination survives death, schism, heresy, etc.  It's a little too convenient for sacramental marriage to disappear upon death when other sacraments survive death and worse.
It's not our choice it's the rule of God and no man can change that although the Orthodox would like to think so (quoting binding and loosing and the imaginary allowance of Paul which isn't an allowance at all, as justification)

I realise that you need to reinforce your views with a good dose of RC triumphalism to justify continuing in your faith now that your Pope routinely undermines your Church's truth claims (for instance, he believes cohabitation is a grace-filled marriage while most sacramental marriages are null), but spare us.
Reinforce myself with the truth of God and teach his word to all those in error and ignorant. Hate falsehood and love truth. I speak here out of love not out of triumph. Out of a wish to show the truth from error. That is then task of the catholic. To be Gods voice in the world. To proclaim his teaching and law against the errors of men.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
If a woman marries, is widowed, and never marries again, it doesn't mean she is unmarried.   

It means exactly that

Only if you prioritise law over grace and death over life.
You Orthodoxpriorotise priortise a bastardised corruption of the law of God above all.

Fixed.

Yeah Good fixing because you Orthodox do
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,229
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #96 on: June 26, 2016, 11:45:19 AM »
On vacation currently, but I do intend to comment on the initial fathers quotes put forth earlier once I get back.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,196
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #97 on: June 26, 2016, 12:01:37 PM »
Therefore, if a divorced woman, who has been separated (from her husband) in soul as well as body, through discord, anger, hatred, and the causes of these— injury, or contumely, or whatsoever cause of complaint— is bound to a personal enemy, not to say a husband, how much more will one who, neither by her own nor her husband's fault, but by an event resulting from the Lord's law, has been— not separated from, but left behind by— her consort, be his, even when dead, to whom, even when dead, she owes (the debt of) concord? From him from whom she has heard no (word of) divorce she does not turn away; with him she is, to whom she has written no (document of) divorce; him whom she was unwilling to have lost, she retains. She has within her the licence of the mind, which represents to a man, in imaginary enjoyment, all things which he has not.

In short, I ask the woman herself, "Tell me, sister, have you sent your husband before you (to his rest) in peace?" What will she answer? (Will she say), "In discord?" In that case she is the more bound to him with whom she has a cause (to plead) at the bar of God. She who is bound (to another) has not departed (from him). But (will she say), "In peace?" In that case, she must necessarily persevere in that (peace) with him whom she will no longer have the power to divorce; not that she would, even if she had been able to divorce him, have been marriageable. Indeed, she prays for his soul, and requests refreshment for him meanwhile, and fellowship (with him) in the first resurrection; and she offers (her sacrifice) on the anniversaries of his falling asleep. For, unless she does these deeds, she has in the true sense divorced him, so far as in her lies; and indeed the more iniquitously— inasmuch as (she did it) as far as was in her power— because she had no power (to do it); and with the more indignity, inasmuch as it is with more indignity if (her reason for doing it is) because he did not deserve it.

Or else shall we, pray, cease to be after death, according to (the teaching of) some Epicurus, and not according to (that of) Christ? But if we believe the resurrection of the dead, of course we shall be bound to them with whom we are destined to rise, to render an account the one of the other. But if;in that age they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be equal to angels; is not the fact that there will be no restitution of the conjugal relation a reason why we shall not be bound to our departed consorts? Nay, but the more shall we be bound (to them), because we are destined to a better estate— destined (as we are) to rise to a spiritual consortship, to recognise as well our own selves as them who are ours. Else how shall we sing thanks to God to eternity, if there shall remain in us no sense and memory of this debt; if we shall be re-formed in substance, not in consciousness?

Consequently, we who shall be with God shall be together; since we shall all be with the one God— albeit the wages be various, albeit there be many mansions, in the house of the same Father having laboured for the one penny of the self-same hire, that is, of eternal life; in which (eternal life) God will still less separate them whom He has conjoined, than in this lesser life He forbids them to be separated.


Tertullian, On Monogamy X

It seems to me based on this, the Church, at least where Tertullian was, has not seen that marriage "ends" with the departed spouse.

His view on marriage is directly derived from montanism. Montanism had an ethical rigorism and asceticism. These included prohibitions against remarriage following divorce or the death of a spouse.

I grant you that this is possibly the case, but because there is no "till death do us part" in Eastern Christianity, there is a very important significance in what he says, and I think it's very Orthodox and Catholic.  There is no more "death" but a departure.  Therefore, if we say our spouse is dead, we are speaking against the grace of the Resurrection.  Our spouse is sleeping is the more appropriate gesture.  Furthermore, if marriage emulates Christ and the Church, it is an eternal relationship.  If the one I marry makes me love Christ more and grow into Christ, how much more would that eternal relationship be!

So...it's one of those moments where this quotes speaks to a Christian mindset of his time.

No it speaks to the montanist heresy and their errors.

Was St. John Chrysostom a Montanist?

No but if he held this position then he slipped into one of their errors. The fathers aren't infallible. Minority should be harmonized into the majority.

You didn't even give us the "majority".  Furthermore, the fathers you give all have various opinions on specifics in marriage as well.

What did St. Athanasius say?  What did St. Cyril of Alexandria say?  What did Leo of Rome say?  What did St. John Cassian say?  What did the Antiochian fathers say?  What did the Cappadocians say?  What did other councils say, if they said anything?  Your sources are merely copy and paste, and not an actual scholarly in depth study of various views of marriage around.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 12:03:11 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,530
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #98 on: June 26, 2016, 02:34:25 PM »
Wandile,

I began reading your reply and resolved not to comment on most of it because we obviously disagree and I don't feel like responding to your childishness in kind.  It is apparent that you are here to peddle a product.  But I couldn't resist these:

There is no marrying or giving in marriage in heaven, but that doesn't mean that the relationship begun here ends there.  In heaven, Wandile is still his mother's son, his father's son, his wife's husband, etc.  Those relationships are not lived there the way they are lived here, but they survive death.

Having a relationship is different to saying marriage exists. You can keep a bond of love for theother person because of your journey on earth together and how you helped each other deify. Your parents are your parents because of your birth on earth to them. You wife can be said to be your wife because of your marriage on earth. But the actualmarriage itself is dissolved and replaced anew with one with God.

Amazing.  Your parents are your own because of your birth to them on earth, but your wife "can be said" to be your wife because of your marriage on earth, the marriage otherwise being considered dissolved. 

Pure sophistry, utter nonsense, and more a heresy than what you ascribe to me. 

By this same logic, your parents on earth are no longer your parents in heaven because the sex that procreated you on earth will not exist in heaven, being replaced by a different sort of communion. 

You accept the parent-child relationship while rejecting the husband-wife relationship because it conflicts with your perversion of orthodox Christian teaching.

Quote
All names we give to people here are in respect of our relationships on earth/temporal relationships. Our eternal unity is found in God alone. He is our Proper Father, Our proper spouse , Our proper Borther, Our proper family. It is from him who we come and from him to whom we return. Our relationships here serve as a way for us to learn how to love God in eternity. They are types of the relationship we will have with God. Any name that still exists with respect to a person you interacted with on earth is not in respect of eternity (for that belongs to God alone) but to our temporal experience on earth. These things do not linger on in heaven by what they are but get fulfilled and completed in God.

More silliness.  If relationships sanctified on earth are fulfilled and completed in God in eternity, that does not mean they are eliminated or annulled.  Or is our Lady no longer the Mother of Jesus?  Is St Joseph longer "eiusdem Virginis Sponsi/her spouse", as the Roman Canon confesses at the behest of one of your latter day saints? 

Quote
Quote
I realise that you need to reinforce your views with a good dose of RC triumphalism to justify continuing in your faith now that your Pope routinely undermines your Church's truth claims (for instance, he believes cohabitation is a grace-filled marriage while most sacramental marriages are null), but spare us.
Reinforce myself with the truth of God and teach his word to all those in error and ignorant. Hate falsehood and love truth. I speak here out of love not out of triumph. Out of a wish to show the truth from error. That is then task of the catholic. To be Gods voice in the world. To proclaim his teaching and law against the errors of men.

Way to throw your Pope under the bus.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #99 on: June 27, 2016, 04:22:50 AM »
Therefore, if a divorced woman, who has been separated (from her husband) in soul as well as body, through discord, anger, hatred, and the causes of these— injury, or contumely, or whatsoever cause of complaint— is bound to a personal enemy, not to say a husband, how much more will one who, neither by her own nor her husband's fault, but by an event resulting from the Lord's law, has been— not separated from, but left behind by— her consort, be his, even when dead, to whom, even when dead, she owes (the debt of) concord? From him from whom she has heard no (word of) divorce she does not turn away; with him she is, to whom she has written no (document of) divorce; him whom she was unwilling to have lost, she retains. She has within her the licence of the mind, which represents to a man, in imaginary enjoyment, all things which he has not.

In short, I ask the woman herself, "Tell me, sister, have you sent your husband before you (to his rest) in peace?" What will she answer? (Will she say), "In discord?" In that case she is the more bound to him with whom she has a cause (to plead) at the bar of God. She who is bound (to another) has not departed (from him). But (will she say), "In peace?" In that case, she must necessarily persevere in that (peace) with him whom she will no longer have the power to divorce; not that she would, even if she had been able to divorce him, have been marriageable. Indeed, she prays for his soul, and requests refreshment for him meanwhile, and fellowship (with him) in the first resurrection; and she offers (her sacrifice) on the anniversaries of his falling asleep. For, unless she does these deeds, she has in the true sense divorced him, so far as in her lies; and indeed the more iniquitously— inasmuch as (she did it) as far as was in her power— because she had no power (to do it); and with the more indignity, inasmuch as it is with more indignity if (her reason for doing it is) because he did not deserve it.

Or else shall we, pray, cease to be after death, according to (the teaching of) some Epicurus, and not according to (that of) Christ? But if we believe the resurrection of the dead, of course we shall be bound to them with whom we are destined to rise, to render an account the one of the other. But if;in that age they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be equal to angels; is not the fact that there will be no restitution of the conjugal relation a reason why we shall not be bound to our departed consorts? Nay, but the more shall we be bound (to them), because we are destined to a better estate— destined (as we are) to rise to a spiritual consortship, to recognise as well our own selves as them who are ours. Else how shall we sing thanks to God to eternity, if there shall remain in us no sense and memory of this debt; if we shall be re-formed in substance, not in consciousness?

Consequently, we who shall be with God shall be together; since we shall all be with the one God— albeit the wages be various, albeit there be many mansions, in the house of the same Father having laboured for the one penny of the self-same hire, that is, of eternal life; in which (eternal life) God will still less separate them whom He has conjoined, than in this lesser life He forbids them to be separated.


Tertullian, On Monogamy X

It seems to me based on this, the Church, at least where Tertullian was, has not seen that marriage "ends" with the departed spouse.

His view on marriage is directly derived from montanism. Montanism had an ethical rigorism and asceticism. These included prohibitions against remarriage following divorce or the death of a spouse.

I grant you that this is possibly the case, but because there is no "till death do us part" in Eastern Christianity, there is a very important significance in what he says, and I think it's very Orthodox and Catholic.  There is no more "death" but a departure.  Therefore, if we say our spouse is dead, we are speaking against the grace of the Resurrection.  Our spouse is sleeping is the more appropriate gesture.  Furthermore, if marriage emulates Christ and the Church, it is an eternal relationship.  If the one I marry makes me love Christ more and grow into Christ, how much more would that eternal relationship be!

So...it's one of those moments where this quotes speaks to a Christian mindset of his time.

No it speaks to the montanist heresy and their errors.

Was St. John Chrysostom a Montanist?

No but if he held this position then he slipped into one of their errors. The fathers aren't infallible. Minority should be harmonized into the majority.

You didn't even give us the "majority".  Furthermore, the fathers you give all have various opinions on specifics in marriage as well.

What did St. Athanasius say?  What did St. Cyril of Alexandria say?  What did Leo of Rome say?  What did St. John Cassian say?  What did the Antiochian fathers say?  What did the Cappadocians say?  What did other councils say, if they said anything?  Your sources are merely copy and paste, and not an actual scholarly in depth study of various views of marriage around.


Clement of Alexandria

“That Scripture counsels marriage, however, and never allows any release from the union, is expressly contained in the law: ‘You shall not divorce a wife, except for reason of immorality.’ And it regards as adultery the marriage of a spouse, while the one from whom a separation was made is still alive. ‘Whoever takes a divorced woman as wife commits adultery,’ it says; for ‘if anyone divorce his wife, he debauches her’; that is, he compels her to commit adultery. And not only does he that divorces her become the cause of this, but also he that takes the woman and gives her the opportunity of sinning; for if he did not take her, she would return to her husband” (Miscellanies 2:23:145:3 [A.D. 208]).

It's funny because not many fathers do actually address it in detail. Those that do espouse the position of the Catholic Church like the ones I showed you.  In fact what's even more interesting is Bishop Elias Zoghby tried to institute the EO practice for the Melkites once at the council but got refuted by his same Patriarch who even confirmed (despite being Byzantine and extremely favourable Byzantine traditions) that the EO practice cannot be found in more than 5 fathers as compared to the Latin Practice which is almost unanimous in the fathers and councils. You do your research and see. The EO position is largely based on an overeliance of St.Basil.

Good read is canon 102 of the council of Carthage in 408
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #100 on: June 27, 2016, 04:23:39 AM »
Wandile,

I began reading your reply and resolved not to comment on most of it because we obviously disagree and I don't feel like responding to your childishness in kind.  It is apparent that you are here to peddle a product.  But I couldn't resist these:

There is no marrying or giving in marriage in heaven, but that doesn't mean that the relationship begun here ends there.  In heaven, Wandile is still his mother's son, his father's son, his wife's husband, etc.  Those relationships are not lived there the way they are lived here, but they survive death.

Having a relationship is different to saying marriage exists. You can keep a bond of love for theother person because of your journey on earth together and how you helped each other deify. Your parents are your parents because of your birth on earth to them. You wife can be said to be your wife because of your marriage on earth. But the actualmarriage itself is dissolved and replaced anew with one with God.

Amazing.  Your parents are your own because of your birth to them on earth, but your wife "can be said" to be your wife because of your marriage on earth, the marriage otherwise being considered dissolved. 

Pure sophistry, utter nonsense, and more a heresy than what you ascribe to me. 

By this same logic, your parents on earth are no longer your parents in heaven because the sex that procreated you on earth will not exist in heaven, being replaced by a different sort of communion. 

You accept the parent-child relationship while rejecting the husband-wife relationship because it conflicts with your perversion of orthodox Christian teaching.

Quote
All names we give to people here are in respect of our relationships on earth/temporal relationships. Our eternal unity is found in God alone. He is our Proper Father, Our proper spouse , Our proper Borther, Our proper family. It is from him who we come and from him to whom we return. Our relationships here serve as a way for us to learn how to love God in eternity. They are types of the relationship we will have with God. Any name that still exists with respect to a person you interacted with on earth is not in respect of eternity (for that belongs to God alone) but to our temporal experience on earth. These things do not linger on in heaven by what they are but get fulfilled and completed in God.

More silliness.  If relationships sanctified on earth are fulfilled and completed in God in eternity, that does not mean they are eliminated or annulled.  Or is our Lady no longer the Mother of Jesus?  Is St Joseph longer "eiusdem Virginis Sponsi/her spouse", as the Roman Canon confesses at the behest of one of your latter day saints? 

Quote
Quote
I realise that you need to reinforce your views with a good dose of RC triumphalism to justify continuing in your faith now that your Pope routinely undermines your Church's truth claims (for instance, he believes cohabitation is a grace-filled marriage while most sacramental marriages are null), but spare us.
Reinforce myself with the truth of God and teach his word to all those in error and ignorant. Hate falsehood and love truth. I speak here out of love not out of triumph. Out of a wish to show the truth from error. That is then task of the catholic. To be Gods voice in the world. To proclaim his teaching and law against the errors of men.

Way to throw your Pope under the bus.
Sure thing :) agree to disagree
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Antonis

  • Μέγα το Θαύμα!
  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,943
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #101 on: June 27, 2016, 12:48:06 PM »
"[The Apostle] shows sufficiently that a faithful woman is blessed in the Lord, even when she marries a second time after the death of her husband."

St. Augustine, On the Good of Widowhood, CSEL 41, pp. 308-309
(Commenting on I Corinthians 7:39-40)

"In the first place you ought to know this, that by the good which you have chosen, second marriages are not condemned, but are set in lower (inferius) honor. For, even as the good of holy virginity which your daughter has chosen, does not condemn your one marriage; so neither does your widowhood condemn the second marriage of any. But the idea that second marriages are to be condemned especially swelled the heresies of the Cataphrygians [i.e., the Montanists] and of the Novatians. Tertullian also, inflated with cheeks full of sound, not of wisdom, and with teeth full of slander, attacked second marriages as unlawful (illicitas), which the Apostle with a sober mind allows to be lawful (licitas)."

St. Augustine, On the Good of Widowhood, CSEL 41, pp. 309-310

cheeks full of sound


teeth full of slander
"Verily they that seek Thee, Lord, and keep the canons of Thy Holy Church shall never want any good thing.”
St. John the Merciful

"This is the one from the beginning, who seemed to be new, yet was found to be ancient and always young, being born in the hearts of the saints."
Letter to Diognetus 11.4

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,530
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #102 on: June 27, 2016, 12:52:36 PM »
Wandile,

I began reading your reply and resolved not to comment on most of it because we obviously disagree and I don't feel like responding to your childishness in kind.  It is apparent that you are here to peddle a product.  But I couldn't resist these:

There is no marrying or giving in marriage in heaven, but that doesn't mean that the relationship begun here ends there.  In heaven, Wandile is still his mother's son, his father's son, his wife's husband, etc.  Those relationships are not lived there the way they are lived here, but they survive death.

Having a relationship is different to saying marriage exists. You can keep a bond of love for theother person because of your journey on earth together and how you helped each other deify. Your parents are your parents because of your birth on earth to them. You wife can be said to be your wife because of your marriage on earth. But the actualmarriage itself is dissolved and replaced anew with one with God.

Amazing.  Your parents are your own because of your birth to them on earth, but your wife "can be said" to be your wife because of your marriage on earth, the marriage otherwise being considered dissolved. 

Pure sophistry, utter nonsense, and more a heresy than what you ascribe to me. 

By this same logic, your parents on earth are no longer your parents in heaven because the sex that procreated you on earth will not exist in heaven, being replaced by a different sort of communion. 

You accept the parent-child relationship while rejecting the husband-wife relationship because it conflicts with your perversion of orthodox Christian teaching.

Quote
All names we give to people here are in respect of our relationships on earth/temporal relationships. Our eternal unity is found in God alone. He is our Proper Father, Our proper spouse , Our proper Borther, Our proper family. It is from him who we come and from him to whom we return. Our relationships here serve as a way for us to learn how to love God in eternity. They are types of the relationship we will have with God. Any name that still exists with respect to a person you interacted with on earth is not in respect of eternity (for that belongs to God alone) but to our temporal experience on earth. These things do not linger on in heaven by what they are but get fulfilled and completed in God.

More silliness.  If relationships sanctified on earth are fulfilled and completed in God in eternity, that does not mean they are eliminated or annulled.  Or is our Lady no longer the Mother of Jesus?  Is St Joseph longer "eiusdem Virginis Sponsi/her spouse", as the Roman Canon confesses at the behest of one of your latter day saints? 

Quote
Quote
I realise that you need to reinforce your views with a good dose of RC triumphalism to justify continuing in your faith now that your Pope routinely undermines your Church's truth claims (for instance, he believes cohabitation is a grace-filled marriage while most sacramental marriages are null), but spare us.
Reinforce myself with the truth of God and teach his word to all those in error and ignorant. Hate falsehood and love truth. I speak here out of love not out of triumph. Out of a wish to show the truth from error. That is then task of the catholic. To be Gods voice in the world. To proclaim his teaching and law against the errors of men.

Way to throw your Pope under the bus.
Sure thing :) agree to disagree

I take it, then, that you believe Mary is no longer the Mother of Jesus, that the Roman Canon errs in calling St Joseph her husband, and Christ is not risen because death still has power over him. 

Yes, we agree to disagree. 

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,530
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #103 on: June 27, 2016, 01:59:10 PM »
"In the first place you ought to know this, that by the good which you have chosen, second marriages are not condemned, but are set in lower (inferius) honor. For, even as the good of holy virginity which your daughter has chosen, does not condemn your one marriage; so neither does your widowhood condemn the second marriage of any. But the idea that second marriages are to be condemned especially swelled the heresies of the Cataphrygians [i.e., the Montanists] and of the Novatians. Tertullian also, inflated with cheeks full of sound, not of wisdom, and with teeth full of slander, attacked second marriages as unlawful (illicitas), which the Apostle with a sober mind allows to be lawful (licitas)."

St. Augustine, On the Good of Widowhood, CSEL 41, pp. 309-310

cheeks full of sound


teeth full of slander

The sickest of sick burns.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #104 on: June 27, 2016, 03:56:54 PM »
Wandile,

I began reading your reply and resolved not to comment on most of it because we obviously disagree and I don't feel like responding to your childishness in kind.  It is apparent that you are here to peddle a product.  But I couldn't resist these:

There is no marrying or giving in marriage in heaven, but that doesn't mean that the relationship begun here ends there.  In heaven, Wandile is still his mother's son, his father's son, his wife's husband, etc.  Those relationships are not lived there the way they are lived here, but they survive death.

Having a relationship is different to saying marriage exists. You can keep a bond of love for theother person because of your journey on earth together and how you helped each other deify. Your parents are your parents because of your birth on earth to them. You wife can be said to be your wife because of your marriage on earth. But the actualmarriage itself is dissolved and replaced anew with one with God.

Amazing.  Your parents are your own because of your birth to them on earth, but your wife "can be said" to be your wife because of your marriage on earth, the marriage otherwise being considered dissolved. 

Pure sophistry, utter nonsense, and more a heresy than what you ascribe to me. 

By this same logic, your parents on earth are no longer your parents in heaven because the sex that procreated you on earth will not exist in heaven, being replaced by a different sort of communion. 

You accept the parent-child relationship while rejecting the husband-wife relationship because it conflicts with your perversion of orthodox Christian teaching.

Quote
All names we give to people here are in respect of our relationships on earth/temporal relationships. Our eternal unity is found in God alone. He is our Proper Father, Our proper spouse , Our proper Borther, Our proper family. It is from him who we come and from him to whom we return. Our relationships here serve as a way for us to learn how to love God in eternity. They are types of the relationship we will have with God. Any name that still exists with respect to a person you interacted with on earth is not in respect of eternity (for that belongs to God alone) but to our temporal experience on earth. These things do not linger on in heaven by what they are but get fulfilled and completed in God.

More silliness.  If relationships sanctified on earth are fulfilled and completed in God in eternity, that does not mean they are eliminated or annulled.  Or is our Lady no longer the Mother of Jesus?  Is St Joseph longer "eiusdem Virginis Sponsi/her spouse", as the Roman Canon confesses at the behest of one of your latter day saints? 

Quote
Quote
I realise that you need to reinforce your views with a good dose of RC triumphalism to justify continuing in your faith now that your Pope routinely undermines your Church's truth claims (for instance, he believes cohabitation is a grace-filled marriage while most sacramental marriages are null), but spare us.
Reinforce myself with the truth of God and teach his word to all those in error and ignorant. Hate falsehood and love truth. I speak here out of love not out of triumph. Out of a wish to show the truth from error. That is then task of the catholic. To be Gods voice in the world. To proclaim his teaching and law against the errors of men.

Way to throw your Pope under the bus.
Sure thing :) agree to disagree

I take it, then, that you believe Mary is no longer the Mother of Jesus, that the Roman Canon errs in calling St Joseph her husband, and Christ is not risen because death still has power over him. 

Yes, we agree to disagree.

I thought we were done with this?

But no. You clearly misunderstood what I meant but I noticed that from your first reply. But make whatever accusations you need to help you feel better about how dismal this argument went for you. Unlike you, I'll stick to agreeing to disagree :)
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,530
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #105 on: June 27, 2016, 03:57:56 PM »
Still not a denial. 

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #106 on: June 27, 2016, 03:59:58 PM »
"[The Apostle] shows sufficiently that a faithful woman is blessed in the Lord, even when she marries a second time after the death of her husband."
Catholic doctrine 101. Marriage after death is permitted

Quote
St. Augustine, On the Good of Widowhood, CSEL 41, pp. 308-309
(Commenting on I Corinthians 7:39-40)

"In the first place you ought to know this, that by the good which you have chosen, second marriages are not condemned, but are set in lower (inferius) honor. For, even as the good of holy virginity which your daughter has chosen, does not condemn your one marriage; so neither does your widowhood condemn the second marriage of any. But the idea that second marriages are to be condemned especially swelled the heresies of the Cataphrygians [i.e., the Montanists] and of the Novatians. Tertullian also, inflated with cheeks full of sound, not of wisdom, and with teeth full of slander, attacked second marriages as unlawful (illicitas), which the Apostle with a sober mind allows to be lawful (licitas)."

St. Augustine, On the Good of Widowhood, CSEL 41, pp. 309-310

cheeks full of sound


teeth full of slander

LOL this is talking about a second marriage after the death of your spouse. This is the Catholic teaching. You're refuting you're own church  :o

Notice he mentions the errors of the montanist who denied second marriages after the death of a spouse. He is correcting them and even mentions how Tertullian attacked second marriage after death (following his montanism) erroneously.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2016, 04:04:15 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,229
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #107 on: June 29, 2016, 10:42:59 AM »
Quote
That's cute and doesn't address any of my arguments
What are your arguments? That the church fathers allowed divorce because of adultery? Did not St. Paul himself state the Lord, not St. Paul himself ,command that a wife not depart from her husband and if she does, she is to remain unmarried? Or that the husband not put away his wife?

As for Jesus allowing divorce, he declared that Moses allowed it because of the hardness of their hearts but it was not God's original intention of the two becoming "one flesh", therefore, Christ restored the original indissolubility of marriage when he declared what God has joined, no man put asunder, no man meaning even adultery. What is God so weak that mere man and his sinful actions can separate what the Almighty has bonded together? You better think about that.

Checkmate indeed.

You better think about actually reading my entire posts instead of taking the first part and forming a strawman. At no point did you address the grammar nor address the exceptions clause Christ made, nor did you address the fact of the lack of distinction between legal and sacramental divorce that I brought up.

You better think about how evil it is to make a great number of people suffer unnecessarily or to at least make them feel incredibly guilty for divorcing when it was for the best. Marriages are dissoluble, and you haven't addressed a single argument of mine that I've made.

Marriages are indissoluble. That's Christianity 101. Read the fathers man.

You can put away your wife/husband (separate from them) but not divorce as divorce means end of marriage. That's is not allowed and is impossible other than by death.  The fathers are clear as day on this

St Ambrose of Milan

"You dismiss your wife, therefore, as if by right and without being charged with wrongdoing; and you suppose it is proper for you to do so because no human law forbids it; but divine law forbids it. Anyone who obeys men ought to stand in awe of God. Hear the law of the Lord, which even they who propose our laws must obey: ‘What God has joined together let no man put asunder’
This first quote doesn't really say what you want to say. As for the second Ambrose quote you made in a later post, I have no idea what its context is, so I will refrain from saying anything.

St Jerome

"Do not tell me about the violence of the ravisher, about the persuasiveness of a mother, about the authority of a father, about the influence of relatives, about the intrigues and insolence of servants, or about household [financial] losses. So long as a husband lives, be he adulterer, be he sodomite, be he addicted to every kind of vice, if she left him on account of his crimes, he is her husband still and she may not take another"

I'll quote myself in response to this quote and the latter one you made in a previous post. It would seem Jerome changed his mind over time.

Hi I know the Catholic teaching on divorce got from the church fathers below. It seems good to me. I am okay with divorcing and not remarrying because of fornication. My problem is what if the first wife purposely does not give you kids. I know you can remarry after she dies. What if she marries you for your money and cheats so she can take your money.  What if she withheld from you important information like she is infertile. I would like answers from Catholics because I was banned a long time ago from Catholic Answers they say because I used a proxy server, because I posted from a library rather than home as usual. I think the real reason is because I made a disturbing post or was biased to the Orthodox Church. I think this post would ban me also. I welcome answers from orthodox with knowledge also

Jerome
Wherever there is fornication and a suspicion of fornication a wife is freely dismissed. Because it is always possible that someone may calumniate the innocent and, for the sake of a second joining in marriage, act in criminal fashion against the first, it is commanded that when the first wife is dismissed a second may not be taken while the first lives (Commentaries on Matthew 3:19:9 [A.D. 398]).

Jerome is often misunderstood, at least in his Commentary on Matthew:

Quote
[Col.0135A] (Vers. 9.) Dico autem vobis, quia quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, nisi ob fornicationem, et aliam duxerit, moechatur. Et qui dimissam duxerit, moechatur. Sola fornicatio est quae uxoris vincat affectum: immo cum illa unam carnem in aliam diviserit, et se fornicatione separaverit 146 a marito, non debet teneri: ne virum quoque sub maledicto faciat, dicente Scriptura: Qui adulteram tenet, stultus et impius est. Ubicumque est igitur fornicatio, et fornicationis suspicio, libere uxor dimittitur. Et quia poterat accidere, ut aliquis calumniam faceret innocenti, et ob secundam copulam nuptiarum, veteri crimen impingeret, sic priorem dimittere jubetur uxorem, ut secundam, prima vivente, non habeat. Quod enim dicit, tale est: Si non propter libidinem, [Col.0135B] sed propter injuriam dimittis uxorem: quare expertus infelices priores nuptias, novarum te immittis periculo? Necnon quia poterat evenire, ut juxta eamdem legem uxor quoque marito daret repudium, eadem cautela praecipitur, ne secundum accipiat virum. Et quia meretrix, et quae semel fuerat adultera, opprobrium non timebat, secundo [a 1Kb]  praecipitur viro, quod si talem duxerit, sub adulterii sit crimine. Saint Jerome, Commentary on Matthew PL 26

Quote
Therefore when one has divided the one flesh into two, and has separated themselves by fornication from the marriage, the marriage ought not to hold: lest the man too fall under evil, as it is said in the Scriptures: He who holds an adulteress is foolish and impious.Wheresoever therefore there is a fornicator and a suspected fornicator, the wife (the presumed cheater) is to be divorced freely. And because he (the husband) was able to sever [the marriage] so that anyone may make a false accusation without harm, and on account for the second bond of marriage, he would have been driven to a crime with the old [marriage]. Thus he wishes to divorce the first wife; so that he may not have the second wife living with the first. In fact [or rather on the contrary for such evil lustful designs], what he says is such: if it is not on account for pleasure, but rather injury, you divorce [your] wife: Why then would the injured party who endured an unfaithful first marriage, allow for the peril of a new one? And indeed he was able to proceed so that the joined wife may too wish to render a legal divorce. The same caution is advised [to the woman] in that she may not marry another man. And because the whore and who was once an adulterer does not fear punishment, to the second man it is warned, that if he marries such a person he may be under the crime of adultery.

Jerome seems more concerned with illegitimate divorce. He also casts suspicion upon those who divorce on supposed legitimate grounds, but seek to remarry. He suspects that really they accused their spouse of adultery falsely so that they may satisfy their evil desires.

Pope Innocent I

"The practice is observed by all of regarding as an adulteress a woman who marries a second time while her husband yet lives, and permission to do penance is not granted her until one of them is dead."

I'll grant you this one.

St Justin Martyr

"And, "Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced from another husband, commits adultery." And, "There are some who have been made eunuchs of men, and some who were born eunuchs, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake; but all cannot receive this saying." So that all who, by human law, are twice married, are in the eye of our Master sinners"
[/i][/center]

I'm not convinced by this quote, at least how you're interpreting it. He is clearly referring to Matthew 19:19. The question remains whether if the woman divorced is divorced on frivolous grounds, which is what the Pharisees advocated, or on legitimate grounds. If the former, then indeed it is adultery. If the latter, then no. That's how I understand it and it could be well that such is how St. Justin is referring to it, as Jerome did in the quote I provided above.

Part 2

Wandile, I think it is a mistake to characterize the Greek East as over relying on the wisdom of St. Basil. The primary reason being that despite some of the adamant sentiments promoted by many Latin Fathers and Latin councils, many other sources including Latin Fathers, Latin councils, Roman popes, and Latin penitentials all echo the Greek-like understanding in one form or another for centuries in the Latin West. Although this eventually dies out by the middle of the ninth century, I cannot in good conscience ignore its relevance to the subject.

Pope Eugenius II convoked a Roman synod in 826. Canon 36 of the synod declared the following:

Quote
No man should be permitted to leave his wife and take another except in cases of fornication. Divorce is to be allowed only for the purposes of entering religious orders.

MGH Concilia aevi Karolini [742-842]. Teil 2 [819-842], 582.

Trans. by Thomas Noble, "The Place in Papal History of the Roman Synod of 826," Church History 45, 4 (Dec., 1976), 434-454.

The Holy Church Father Ambrosiaster wrote the following on the issue:

Quote
The apostle's advice is as follows: If a woman has left her husband because of his bad behavior, she should remain unmarried or be reconciled to him. If she cannot control herself, because she is unwilling to struggle against the flesh, then let her be reconciled to her husband. A woman may not marry if she has left her husband because of his fornication or apostasy, or because, impelled by lust, he wishes to have sexual relations with her in an illicit way. This is because the inferior party does not have the same rights under the law as the stronger one has. But if the husband turns away from the faith or desires to have perverted sexual relations, the wife may neither marry another nor return to him. The husband should not divorce his wife, though one should add the clause "except for fornication". The reason why Paul does not add, as he does in the case of the woman, "But if she departs, he should remain as he is" is because a man is allowed to remarry if he has divorced a sinful wife. The husband is not restricted by the law as a woman is, for the head of a woman is her husband.

Ambrosiaster, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 7: 11 Trans. by Gerald L. Bray

Sexist no doubt, but that was par for the course back then. Nevertheless, an example of remarriage being permitted.

There are also some Late Antique councils in the Latin West that clearly teach against the indissobility of marriage. These are:

Quote
Council of Arles in 314 AD Citation: Concilium Andegavense, canon 6, in Conciliae Galliae A. 314-A.506, edited by C. Munier, CCSL volume 148 (Turnholt, 1963): page 138 Ruling: Merely advised against remarriage for men who have divorced adulterous wives.

 
Council of Angers in 453 AD Citation: Concilium Arelatense, canon 10, CCSL 148: 11 Ruling: Prohibition of remarriage limited to only women in cases of divorce.

Council of Vannes 465 AD Citation: Concilium Vernerticum, canon 2, CCSL, 148: 152. Ruling: Remarriage permitted for divorcees if adultery could be proved.

Primary sources listed above. Recommended secondary reading: Jo Ann McNamara and Suzanne F. Wemple, "Marriage and Divorce in the Frankish Kingdom," in Women in Medieval Society, edited by Susan Mosher Stuard (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1976), 95-124.

Unfortunately, I do not currently have access to the CCSL, so I can only relay the info from the secondary sources. Now for the stuff I have more access to, the early medieval councils.

The Council of Soissons in 744:

Quote
Similiter constituemus, ut nullus laicus homo Deo sacrata femina ad mulierem non habeat nec sua parentem; nec marito viventem sua mulier alius non accipiat, nec mulier vivente suo viro alium accipiat, quia maritus mulier sua non debet dimittere, excepto causa fornicationis deprehensa.

Quote
Similarly we will establish, that no layman shall neither have his parents nor a nun as his wife. Neither shall another receive his wife while the husband lives, nor shall the wife receive another while her husband lives, BECAUSE the husband ought not to dismiss his wife, unless a case of adultery has been discovered.

Concilium Suessionense, canon 9, MGH, Concilium 2:1, 35

Please do note in the canon above, the prohibition against remarriage while the other former spouse lives is entirely dependent upon the condition that adultery has not been PROVEN.

The Council of Compiègne in 757:

Quote
Si quis homo habet mulierem legittimam, et frater eius adulteravit cum ea, ille frater vel illa femina qui adulterium perpetraverunt, interim quo vivunt, numquam habeant coniugium. Ille cuius uxor fuit, si vult, potestatem habet accipere aliam.

Canon 11: If any man has a legal wife, and his brother has committed adultery with her, that brother and that woman who committed adultery may never marry one another while living. That man who was her spouse, if he wishes, has the power to marry another.

Capitularia regum francorum, MGH 1: 38

Council of Verberie in ?758-768?:

Quote
Si qua mulier mortem viri sui cum aliis hominibus consiliavit, et ipse vir ipsius hominem se defendo occiderit et hoc probare potest, ille vir potest ipsam uxorem dimittere et, si voluerit, aliam accipiat.

Canon 5: If a wife has conspired the murder of her husband with another man, and the man himself kills the other man in self defense and is able to prove this, that man is able to divorce his wife, and if he wishes, marry another.

Capitularia regum francorum, MGH 1: 40

There are other canons in these Frankish councils that deal with other details of marriage. I've merely sampled a few here.

I haven't really mentioned the penitentials yet, and maybe I will. But this post has already required too much effort.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #108 on: June 29, 2016, 12:33:42 PM »
Quote
That's cute and doesn't address any of my arguments
What are your arguments? That the church fathers allowed divorce because of adultery? Did not St. Paul himself state the Lord, not St. Paul himself ,command that a wife not depart from her husband and if she does, she is to remain unmarried? Or that the husband not put away his wife?

As for Jesus allowing divorce, he declared that Moses allowed it because of the hardness of their hearts but it was not God's original intention of the two becoming "one flesh", therefore, Christ restored the original indissolubility of marriage when he declared what God has joined, no man put asunder, no man meaning even adultery. What is God so weak that mere man and his sinful actions can separate what the Almighty has bonded together? You better think about that.

Checkmate indeed.

You better think about actually reading my entire posts instead of taking the first part and forming a strawman. At no point did you address the grammar nor address the exceptions clause Christ made, nor did you address the fact of the lack of distinction between legal and sacramental divorce that I brought up.

You better think about how evil it is to make a great number of people suffer unnecessarily or to at least make them feel incredibly guilty for divorcing when it was for the best. Marriages are dissoluble, and you haven't addressed a single argument of mine that I've made.

Marriages are indissoluble. That's Christianity 101. Read the fathers man.

You can put away your wife/husband (separate from them) but not divorce as divorce means end of marriage. That's is not allowed and is impossible other than by death.  The fathers are clear as day on this

St Ambrose of Milan

"You dismiss your wife, therefore, as if by right and without being charged with wrongdoing; and you suppose it is proper for you to do so because no human law forbids it; but divine law forbids it. Anyone who obeys men ought to stand in awe of God. Hear the law of the Lord, which even they who propose our laws must obey: ‘What God has joined together let no man put asunder’
This first quote doesn't really say what you want to say. As for the second Ambrose quote you made in a later post, I have no idea what its context is, so I will refrain from saying anything.
Thank you for your response. Please bear with me that I might need two posts for this.

It quite clearly does. He forbids the seperation of a married couple without just cause because divine law forbids it. The words are explicit.

Quote
St Jerome

"Do not tell me about the violence of the ravisher, about the persuasiveness of a mother, about the authority of a father, about the influence of relatives, about the intrigues and insolence of servants, or about household [financial] losses. So long as a husband lives, be he adulterer, be he sodomite, be he addicted to every kind of vice, if she left him on account of his crimes, he is her husband still and she may not take another"

I'll quote myself in response to this quote and the latter one you made in a previous post. It would seem Jerome changed his mind over time.

Hi I know the Catholic teaching on divorce got from the church fathers below. It seems good to me. I am okay with divorcing and not remarrying because of fornication. My problem is what if the first wife purposely does not give you kids. I know you can remarry after she dies. What if she marries you for your money and cheats so she can take your money.  What if she withheld from you important information like she is infertile. I would like answers from Catholics because I was banned a long time ago from Catholic Answers they say because I used a proxy server, because I posted from a library rather than home as usual. I think the real reason is because I made a disturbing post or was biased to the Orthodox Church. I think this post would ban me also. I welcome answers from orthodox with knowledge also

Jerome
Wherever there is fornication and a suspicion of fornication a wife is freely dismissed. Because it is always possible that someone may calumniate the innocent and, for the sake of a second joining in marriage, act in criminal fashion against the first, it is commanded that when the first wife is dismissed a second may not be taken while the first lives (Commentaries on Matthew 3:19:9 [A.D. 398]).

Jerome is often misunderstood, at least in his Commentary on Matthew:

Quote
[Col.0135A] (Vers. 9.) Dico autem vobis, quia quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, nisi ob fornicationem, et aliam duxerit, moechatur. Et qui dimissam duxerit, moechatur. Sola fornicatio est quae uxoris vincat affectum: immo cum illa unam carnem in aliam diviserit, et se fornicatione separaverit 146 a marito, non debet teneri: ne virum quoque sub maledicto faciat, dicente Scriptura: Qui adulteram tenet, stultus et impius est. Ubicumque est igitur fornicatio, et fornicationis suspicio, libere uxor dimittitur. Et quia poterat accidere, ut aliquis calumniam faceret innocenti, et ob secundam copulam nuptiarum, veteri crimen impingeret, sic priorem dimittere jubetur uxorem, ut secundam, prima vivente, non habeat. Quod enim dicit, tale est: Si non propter libidinem, [Col.0135B] sed propter injuriam dimittis uxorem: quare expertus infelices priores nuptias, novarum te immittis periculo? Necnon quia poterat evenire, ut juxta eamdem legem uxor quoque marito daret repudium, eadem cautela praecipitur, ne secundum accipiat virum. Et quia meretrix, et quae semel fuerat adultera, opprobrium non timebat, secundo [a 1Kb]  praecipitur viro, quod si talem duxerit, sub adulterii sit crimine. Saint Jerome, Commentary on Matthew PL 26

Quote
Therefore when one has divided the one flesh into two, and has separated themselves by fornication from the marriage, the marriage ought not to hold: lest the man too fall under evil, as it is said in the Scriptures: He who holds an adulteress is foolish and impious.Wheresoever therefore there is a fornicator and a suspected fornicator, the wife (the presumed cheater) is to be divorced freely. And because he (the husband) was able to sever [the marriage] so that anyone may make a false accusation without harm, and on account for the second bond of marriage, he would have been driven to a crime with the old [marriage]. Thus he wishes to divorce the first wife; so that he may not have the second wife living with the first. In fact [or rather on the contrary for such evil lustful designs], what he says is such: if it is not on account for pleasure, but rather injury, you divorce [your] wife: Why then would the injured party who endured an unfaithful first marriage, allow for the peril of a new one? And indeed he was able to proceed so that the joined wife may too wish to render a legal divorce. The same caution is advised [to the woman] in that she may not marry another man. And because the whore and who was once an adulterer does not fear punishment, to the second man it is warned, that if he marries such a person he may be under the crime of adultery.

Jerome seems more concerned with illegitimate divorce. He also casts suspicion upon those who divorce on supposed legitimate grounds, but seek to remarry. He suspects that really they accused their spouse of adultery falsely so that they may satisfy their evil desires.

You are right in that he is concerned with illegitimate divorce here. As in the first quote he says divine law forbids unjust divorce unless you have cause (adultery can be proven). He however goes on to still highlight the divine law against remarriage saying in both instances it is not allowed. Him saying he "may be" is not "maybe"... He means that he is allowed to be held under the pin of adultery not because he is adulterous but because as Christ said , he lays with the wife of another man causing him to also be an adulterer. Again this shows indisollubility of marriage as even after a seperation the woman is still held as his wife, although seperated. Any other man who lay with her is an adulterer. This whole quote refutes the current EO practice.

Quote
Pope Innocent I

"The practice is observed by all of regarding as an adulteress a woman who marries a second time while her husband yet lives, and permission to do penance is not granted her until one of them is dead."

I'll grant you this one.

St Justin Martyr

"And, "Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced from another husband, commits adultery." And, "There are some who have been made eunuchs of men, and some who were born eunuchs, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake; but all cannot receive this saying." So that all who, by human law, are twice married, are in the eye of our Master sinners"
[/i][/center]

I'm not convinced by this quote, at least how you're interpreting it. He is clearly referring to Matthew 19:19. The question remains whether if the woman divorced is divorced on frivolous grounds, which is what the Pharisees advocated, or on legitimate grounds. If the former, then indeed it is adultery. If the latter, then no. That's how I understand it and it could be well that such is how St. Justin is referring to it, as Jerome did in the quote I provided above.

Your understanding is wrong. The clause of adultery is not in relation to remarriage, it's in relation to divorce. Hence St Jerome says "do not tell me about the violence of the ravisher about the persuasiveness of a mother, about the authority of a father, about the influence of relatives, about the intrigues and insolence of servants, or about household [financial] losses..." becaus the only justifiable cause for divorce is adultery.  St Justin is explicit in saying In relation to living spouses who are divorced, "So that all who, by human law, are twice married, are in the eye of our Master sinners"
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #109 on: June 29, 2016, 01:19:22 PM »
Part 2

Wandile, I think it is a mistake to characterize the Greek East as over relying on the wisdom of St. Basil.
It's a fact that the current practice which originated at Trullo was inspired by St Basil and his canons because under pressure from the emperor to lax ecclesiastical law on marriage, the Byzantines had to find whatever justification they could no matter how minute the opinion.

Quote
The primary reason being that despite some of the adamant sentiments promoted by many Latin Fathers and Latin councils, many other sources including Latin Fathers, Latin councils, Roman popes, and Latin penitentials all echo the Greek-like understanding in one form or another for centuries in the Latin West.
Let's see

Quote
Although this eventually dies out by the middle of the ninth century, I cannot in good conscience ignore its relevance to the subject.
The fact that it dies out is telling on how the dissenters were corrected. Such attempts failed in the east as whenever a bishop who practiced remarriage was replaced, the replacement would do the same angering the Pope who admonished the Byzantines on many occasions of this novel practice which clearly went against scripture (something Emperor Gratian noted when investigating the fathers an scripture on the marriage teaching in response to those who allowed remarriage)

Quote
Pope Eugenius II convoked a Roman synod in 826. Canon 36 of the synod declared the following:

No man should be permitted to leave his wife and take another except in cases of fornication. Divorce is to be allowed only for the purposes of entering religious orders.


MGH Concilia aevi Karolini [742-842]. Teil 2 [819-842], 582.

Trans. by Thomas Noble, "The Place in Papal History of the Roman Synod of 826," Church History 45, 4 (Dec., 1976), 434-454.
This canon is one of the novelties in the Latin tradition. Another Pope, who Emperor Gratian responded to on this issue also taught that it was allowed. But I will grant you this one.

Quote
The Holy Church Father Ambrosiaster
Ambrosiaster is the name given to the writer of a commentary on St Paul's epistles although this commentary was actually erroneously attributed for a long time to St Ambrose. Nobody knows who authored this document.

Quote
wrote the following on the issue:

Quote
The apostle's advice is as follows: If a woman has left her husband because of his bad behavior, she should remain unmarried or be reconciled to him. If she cannot control herself, because she is unwilling to struggle against the flesh, then let her be reconciled to her husband. A woman may not marry if she has left her husband because of his fornication or apostasy, or because, impelled by lust, he wishes to have sexual relations with her in an illicit way. This is because the inferior party does not have the same rights under the law as the stronger one has. But if the husband turns away from the faith or desires to have perverted sexual relations, the wife may neither marry another nor return to him. The husband should not divorce his wife, though one should add the clause "except for fornication". The reason why Paul does not add, as he does in the case of the woman, "But if she departs, he should remain as he is" is because a man is allowed to remarry if he has divorced a sinful wife. The husband is not restricted by the law as a woman is, for the head of a woman is her husband.

Ambrosiaster, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 7: 11 Trans. by Gerald L. Bray

Sexist no doubt, but that was par for the course back then. Nevertheless, an example of remarriage being permitted.
Granted but as we know his (whoever this was) teaching on marriage had little traction in the church of the west.

Quote
There are also some Late Antique councils in the Latin West that clearly teach against the indissobility of marriage. These are:

Quote
Council of Arles in 314 AD Citation: Concilium Andegavense, canon 6, in Conciliae Galliae A. 314-A.506, edited by C. Munier, CCSL volume 148 (Turnholt, 1963): page 138 Ruling: Merely advised against remarriage for men who have divorced adulterous wives.

 
Council of Angers in 453 AD Citation: Concilium Arelatense, canon 10, CCSL 148: 11 Ruling: Prohibition of remarriage limited to only women in cases of divorce.

Council of Vannes 465 AD Citation: Concilium Vernerticum, canon 2, CCSL, 148: 152. Ruling: Remarriage permitted for divorcees if adultery could be proved.

Primary sources listed above. Recommended secondary reading: Jo Ann McNamara and Suzanne F. Wemple, "Marriage and Divorce in the Frankish Kingdom," in Women in Medieval Society, edited by Susan Mosher Stuard (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1976), 95-124.

Unfortunately, I do not currently have access to the CCSL, so I can only relay the info from the secondary sources.
I will not comment on these bacause I don't have access to the actual canons

Quote
Now for the stuff I have more access to, the early medieval councils.

The Council of Soissons in 744:

Quote
Similiter constituemus, ut nullus laicus homo Deo sacrata femina ad mulierem non habeat nec sua parentem; nec marito viventem sua mulier alius non accipiat, nec mulier vivente suo viro alium accipiat, quia maritus mulier sua non debet dimittere, excepto causa fornicationis deprehensa.

Quote
Similarly we will establish, that no layman shall neither have his parents nor a nun as his wife. Neither shall another receive his wife while the husband lives, nor shall the wife receive another while her husband lives, BECAUSE the husband ought not to dismiss his wife, unless a case of adultery has been discovered

Concilium Suessionense, canon 9, MGH, Concilium 2:1, 35


Please do note in the canon above, the prohibition against remarriage while the other former spouse lives is entirely dependent upon the condition that adultery has not been PROVEN.
No Your understanding is completely incorrect.

This talks about legitimate divorce. It says that only in the case of adultery can you divorce. As it says "the husband ought not to dismiss his wife..." This is not against indisollubility (in all respect I'm not sure you know what that means or refers to) as this is a separation. To dismiss is to separate/divorce. This clause says nothing of being allowed remarry.

As seen even after the divorce the canon does not permit remarriage because they are still husband and wife although seperated hence it says "Neither shall another receive his wifewhile the husband lives, nor shall the wife receive another while her husband lives"

Quote
The Council of Compiègne in 757:

Quote
Si quis homo habet mulierem legittimam, et frater eius adulteravit cum ea, ille frater vel illa femina qui adulterium perpetraverunt, interim quo vivunt, numquam habeant coniugium. Ille cuius uxor fuit, si vult, potestatem habet accipere aliam.

Canon 11: If any man has a legal wife, and his brother has committed adultery with her, that brother and that woman who committed adultery may never marry one another while living. That man who was her spouse, if he wishes, has the power to marry another.

Capitularia regum francorum, MGH 1: 38
This speaks of civil marriage. Civil marriages can be dissolved, not ecclesiastical ones. St. Paul even teaches on this in the real Pauline  where he discusses civil/legal marriage vs ecclesiastical marriage.

Quote
Council of Verberie in ?758-768?:

Quote
Si qua mulier mortem viri sui cum aliis hominibus consiliavit, et ipse vir ipsius hominem se defendo occiderit et hoc probare potest, ille vir potest ipsam uxorem dimittere et, si voluerit, aliam accipiat.

Canon 5: If a wife has conspired the murder of her husband with another man, and the man himself kills the other man in self defense and is able to prove this, that man is able to divorce his wife, and if he wishes, marry another.

Capitularia regum francorum, MGH 1: 40
I have a strange feeling that this canon is speaking about an invalid marriage. But I will grant you this one as I haven't seen the whole context of the canon.

Quote
There are other canons in these Frankish councils that deal with other details of marriage. I've merely sampled a few here.

I haven't really mentioned the penitentials yet, and maybe I will. But this post has already required too much effort.

Please do
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 01:21:19 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,229
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #110 on: June 29, 2016, 01:39:33 PM »
You are right in that he is concerned with illegitimate divorce here. As in the first quote he says divine law forbids unjust divorce unless you have cause (adultery can be proven). He however goes on to still highlight the divine law against remarriage saying in both instances it is not allowed. Him saying he "may be" is not "maybe"... He means that he is allowed to be held under the pin of adultery not because he is adulterous but because as Christ said , he lays with the wife of another man causing him to also be an adulterer. Again this shows indisollubility of marriage as even after a seperation the woman is still held as his wife, although seperated. Any other man who lay with her is an adulterer. This whole quote refutes the current EO practice.

I'm having difficulties following your logic here. The reason he indicates it might be the result of adultery is solely because the divorce might have been done on trumped up charges. Again, I think it seems evident that Jerome changed his position as can be seen in his letter you cited. I'm not sure of the chronology of his commentary on Matthew and his letter though, although it would be interesting to see.

As for Ambrose, all I see is him protesting divorce on illegitimate grounds. I don't see it covering the full scope in the quote that I discussed.

As for St. Justyn Martyr, fair point. I concede on it.

Part 2 in next post.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,229
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #111 on: June 29, 2016, 02:34:51 PM »
Part 2

Wandile, I think it is a mistake to characterize the Greek East as over relying on the wisdom of St. Basil.
It's a fact that the current practice which originated at Trullo was inspired by St Basil and his canons because under pressure from the emperor to lax ecclesiastical law on marriage, the Byzantines had to find whatever justification they could no matter how minute the opinion.

Quote
The primary reason being that despite some of the adamant sentiments promoted by many Latin Fathers and Latin councils, many other sources including Latin Fathers, Latin councils, Roman popes, and Latin penitentials all echo the Greek-like understanding in one form or another for centuries in the Latin West.
Let's see

Quote
Although this eventually dies out by the middle of the ninth century, I cannot in good conscience ignore its relevance to the subject.
The fact that it dies out is telling on how the dissenters were corrected. Such attempts failed in the east as whenever a bishop who practiced remarriage was replaced, the replacement would do the same angering the Pope who admonished the Byzantines on many occasions of this novel practice which clearly went against scripture (something Emperor Gratian noted when investigating the fathers an scripture on the marriage teaching in response to those who allowed remarriage)

Quote
Pope Eugenius II convoked a Roman synod in 826. Canon 36 of the synod declared the following:

No man should be permitted to leave his wife and take another except in cases of fornication. Divorce is to be allowed only for the purposes of entering religious orders.


MGH Concilia aevi Karolini [742-842]. Teil 2 [819-842], 582.

Trans. by Thomas Noble, "The Place in Papal History of the Roman Synod of 826," Church History 45, 4 (Dec., 1976), 434-454.
This canon is one of the novelties in the Latin tradition. Another Pope, who Emperor Gratian responded to on this issue also taught that it was allowed. But I will grant you this one.

I don't think it is a novelty considering the other historical precedents I showed.

Quote
The Holy Church Father Ambrosiaster
Ambrosiaster is the name given to the writer of a commentary on St Paul's epistles although this commentary was actually erroneously attributed for a long time to St Ambrose. Nobody knows who authored this document.

Anonymity is not grounds for dismissal. We don't dismiss Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite on the basis of not know who he really was.

Quote
The Holy Church Father Ambrosiaster
Quote
wrote the following on the issue:

Quote
The apostle's advice is as follows: If a woman has left her husband because of his bad behavior, she should remain unmarried or be reconciled to him. If she cannot control herself, because she is unwilling to struggle against the flesh, then let her be reconciled to her husband. A woman may not marry if she has left her husband because of his fornication or apostasy, or because, impelled by lust, he wishes to have sexual relations with her in an illicit way. This is because the inferior party does not have the same rights under the law as the stronger one has. But if the husband turns away from the faith or desires to have perverted sexual relations, the wife may neither marry another nor return to him. The husband should not divorce his wife, though one should add the clause "except for fornication". The reason why Paul does not add, as he does in the case of the woman, "But if she departs, he should remain as he is" is because a man is allowed to remarry if he has divorced a sinful wife. The husband is not restricted by the law as a woman is, for the head of a woman is her husband.

Ambrosiaster, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 7: 11 Trans. by Gerald L. Bray

Sexist no doubt, but that was par for the course back then. Nevertheless, an example of remarriage being permitted.
Granted but as we know his (whoever this was) teaching on marriage had little traction in the church of the west.

I don't think this to be true, by virtue of the councils I listed below. Although we cannot delve deeper into them due to the lack of the primary sources, there rulings clearly show his impact.

Quote
The Holy Church Father Ambrosiaster
Quote
There are also some Late Antique councils in the Latin West that clearly teach against the indissobility of marriage. These are:

Quote
Council of Arles in 314 AD Citation: Concilium Andegavense, canon 6, in Conciliae Galliae A. 314-A.506, edited by C. Munier, CCSL volume 148 (Turnholt, 1963): page 138 Ruling: Merely advised against remarriage for men who have divorced adulterous wives.
 
Council of Angers in 453 AD Citation: Concilium Arelatense, canon 10, CCSL 148: 11 Ruling: Prohibition of remarriage limited to only women in cases of divorce.

Council of Vannes 465 AD Citation: Concilium Vernerticum, canon 2, CCSL, 148: 152. Ruling: Remarriage permitted for divorcees if adultery could be proved.

Primary sources listed above. Recommended secondary reading: Jo Ann McNamara and Suzanne F. Wemple, "Marriage and Divorce in the Frankish Kingdom," in Women in Medieval Society, edited by Susan Mosher Stuard (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1976), 95-124.

Unfortunately, I do not currently have access to the CCSL, so I can only relay the info from the secondary sources.
I will not comment on these bacause I don't have access to the actual canons

Fair enough, but I do maintain that they should be kept in mind at least when considering the subject.

Quote
The Holy Church Father Ambrosiaster
Quote
Now for the stuff I have more access to, the early medieval councils.

The Council of Soissons in 744:

Quote
Similiter constituemus, ut nullus laicus homo Deo sacrata femina ad mulierem non habeat nec sua parentem; nec marito viventem sua mulier alius non accipiat, nec mulier vivente suo viro alium accipiat, quia maritus mulier sua non debet dimittere, excepto causa fornicationis deprehensa.

Quote
Similarly we will establish, that no layman shall neither have his parents nor a nun as his wife. Neither shall another receive his wife while the husband lives, nor shall the wife receive another while her husband lives, BECAUSE the husband ought not to dismiss his wife, unless a case of adultery has been discovered

Concilium Suessionense, canon 9, MGH, Concilium 2:1, 35


Please do note in the canon above, the prohibition against remarriage while the other former spouse lives is entirely dependent upon the condition that adultery has not been PROVEN.
No Your understanding is completely incorrect.

This talks about legitimate divorce. It says that only in the case of adultery can you divorce. As it says "the husband ought not to dismiss his wife..." This is not against indisollubility (in all respect I'm not sure you know what that means or refers to) as this is a separation. To dismiss is to separate/divorce. This clause says nothing of being allowed remarry.

As seen even after the divorce the canon does not permit remarriage because they are still husband and wife although seperated hence it says "Neither shall another receive his wifewhile the husband lives, nor shall the wife receive another while her husband lives"

The canon doesn't make sense under your line of interpretation. First off, taking or receiving another is a medieval way of saying marriage. Secondly, the clause about divorce for adultery explicitly concerns remarriage, that is taking another. Note that the canon openly acknowledges that many divorce for reasons other than adultery. If such is the case, then remarriage while the spouse lives is forbidden. However, if adultery is discovered and proven, then the ban does not apply.

Quote
The Holy Church Father Ambrosiaster
Quote
The Council of Compiègne in 757:

Quote
Si quis homo habet mulierem legittimam, et frater eius adulteravit cum ea, ille frater vel illa femina qui adulterium perpetraverunt, interim quo vivunt, numquam habeant coniugium. Ille cuius uxor fuit, si vult, potestatem habet accipere aliam.

Canon 11: If any man has a legal wife, and his brother has committed adultery with her, that brother and that woman who committed adultery may never marry one another while living. That man who was her spouse, if he wishes, has the power to marry another.

Capitularia regum francorum, MGH 1: 38
This speaks of civil marriage. Civil marriages can be dissolved, not ecclesiastical ones. St. Paul even teaches on this in the real Pauline  where he discusses civil/legal marriage vs ecclesiastical marriage.

This stark distinction between a civil marriage and an ecclesiastical marriage is a much later historical development at the time. This also seriously brings into question the Latin notion of the couple performing the marriage, not the church. Furthermore, this is at a time period where the laws of the church were further becoming the basis of secular law. The bishops of the Frankish Church often made their canons on these matters with the idea of changing secular law. For sure, there was acknowledgment of a secular law and a canon law. However, to say that marriage was viewed in two modes is erroneous. The bishops and the laymen may have had different understandings on how to regulate it, but they were talking about the same thing, not different forms of marriage. This decision above was decided by a council of bishops, so this clearly evokes their view on marriage as a whole.

Quote
The Holy Church Father Ambrosiaster
Quote
Council of Verberie in ?758-768?:

Quote
Si qua mulier mortem viri sui cum aliis hominibus consiliavit, et ipse vir ipsius hominem se defendo occiderit et hoc probare potest, ille vir potest ipsam uxorem dimittere et, si voluerit, aliam accipiat.

Canon 5: If a wife has conspired the murder of her husband with another man, and the man himself kills the other man in self defense and is able to prove this, that man is able to divorce his wife, and if he wishes, marry another.

Capitularia regum francorum, MGH 1: 40
I have a strange feeling that this canon is speaking about an invalid marriage. But I will grant you this one as I haven't seen the whole context of the canon.

What makes you think that? The canon stands alone. Canon 4, which precedes it talks about the rules regulating marriage should the wife wish to enter the monastery and on what basis he may reclaim her. Canon 6 concerns special regulations for slave spouses. Canon 9 is also very interesting:

Quote
Si quis necessitate inevitabli cogente in alium ducatum seu provinciam fugerit aut seniorem suum, cui fidem mentiri non poterit, secutus fuerit, et uxor eius, cum valet et potest, amore parentum aut rebus suis eum sequi noluerit, ipsa omni tempore, quamdiu vir eius quem secuta non fuit vivet, semper innupta permaneat. Nam ille vir eius, qui necessitate cogente in alium locum fugit, si se abstinere non potest, aliam uxorem cum poenitentia potest accipere.

Quote
Canon 9: If any necessity for following one's leader to go to another province, to whom he is not able to break allegiance to, the following may be/apply: his wife, may follow him with love and obedience if she is strong and able; or if she does not wish to follow him with their things, she herself in all time shall remain unmarried always, as long as her husband lives that she did not follow. For that man of hers, who is going to another place by necessity, if he is not able to abstain, he is able to marry another wife with penance.

Capitularia regum francorum, MGH 1: 41

Quote
There are other canons in these Frankish councils that deal with other details of marriage. I've merely sampled a few here.

I haven't really mentioned the penitentials yet, and maybe I will. But this post has already required too much effort.

Please do

I'll provide penetentials later soon hopefully.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 02:54:45 PM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,229
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #112 on: July 13, 2016, 10:47:20 PM »
An excerpt of a penitential:

Quote
...Si mulier maritum suum a se rejiciat, & dein nolit resipiscere, & cum eo in quinque annis pacem inire, maritus cum consensus episcopi, aliam uxorem ducere potest. Si maritus uxoris in captivitatem ducatur, expectat eum sex annos, & ita vir uxori faciat,.... Si maritus aliam uxorem ducat, & captiva post quinque annos redeat, deserat posteriorem, & captivam sumat, quam antea eodem modo duxerat....

Quote
If a wife should reject her husband from herself, and then not wish to come to her senses, if five years have passed, the husband is able to marry another woman with the consent of the bishop. If the husband of a wife is led into captivity or slavery, she may await him for six years and then a man may take to the wife. ... If a husband marries another wife, and after five years the captured woman (former wife) returns, he should leave the latter wife, and take the former, as they were married before.

Pseudo-Egobert, Mansi 12: 438, #26
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,462
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #113 on: July 14, 2016, 01:21:43 PM »
Hi I know the Catholic teaching on divorce got from the church fathers below. It seems good to me. I am okay with divorcing and not remarrying because of fornication. My problem is what if the first wife purposely does not give you kids. I know you can remarry after she dies. What if she marries you for your money and cheats so she can take your money.  What if she withheld from you important information like she is infertile. I would like answers from Catholics because I was banned a long time ago from Catholic Answers they say because I used a proxy server, because I posted from a library rather than home as usual. I think the real reason is because I made a disturbing post or was biased to the Orthodox Church. I think this post would ban me also. I welcome answers from orthodox with knowledge also

Jerome
Wherever there is fornication and a suspicion of fornication a wife is freely dismissed. Because it is always possible that someone may calumniate the innocent and, for the sake of a second joining in marriage, act in criminal fashion against the first, it is commanded that when the first wife is dismissed a second may not be taken while the first lives (Commentaries on Matthew 3:19:9 [A.D. 398]).

Jerome is often misunderstood, at least in his Commentary on Matthew:
I'd love to see the Vaticanistas explain their Corban factories a/k/a marriage tribunals a/k/a annulment rubber stamp with the boldened.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,462
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #114 on: July 14, 2016, 01:24:51 PM »
. I am okay with divorcing and not remarrying because of fornication. My problem is what if the first wife purposely does not give you kids. I know you can remarry after she dies. What if she marries you for your money and cheats so she can take your money.  What if she withheld from you important information like she is infertile. 

You don't seen to have a very high opinion of women.
or he has some knowledge of divorce court.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,462
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #115 on: July 14, 2016, 01:30:13 PM »
So you can put asunder what God has joined, not only once, but three times.

Nice.

What happens when that third trip around is really, really bad?

Oh well, too bad for you.

You do realise that the rule applies to dissolution by death as well, don't you?
So what you're telling me is that in the OC, if three of your spouses die, it's over getting married?

Well, what would ol King Henry have done? 8)


he did the same thing his aunt did-get a "'shameless sentence sent from Rome." Unfortunately, he had married the aunt of the Emperor who had their pope besieged in Rome.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,462
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #116 on: July 14, 2016, 01:31:48 PM »
I am just wondering if maybe some of the biggest debaters of this issue should worry about finding wife #1 rather than trying to figure out how to put asunder an imaginary bride.
you mean, Mrs. Martel?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,462
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #117 on: July 14, 2016, 01:39:49 PM »
So you can put asunder what God has joined, not only once, but three times.

Nice.

It's better than to come up with some legalistic mumbo jumbo to allow the same practical effects under the banner of "annulment".
Validity of sacraments is not exclusive to marriage but all.

Quote
It is the priest, the Church, who bonds two people through the Sacrament of Marriage.
In the Byzantine Orthodox tradition. In the Latin tradition it is the couple who bind each other in marriage not the priest.
Fixed that for you.

The Vatican tradition is in error.

Quote
It is also the Church who divorces them, so I'm not seeing a problem here.
The Church binds, the Church looses.

The church was not given authority the break divine law.

and yet the Vatican issues dispensations to do just that, and serves up Corban to annul it.

"What God Joins together let no man put asunder" (Mark 10:9).

 "And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. " (Matthew 19:9)
IOW, the adulterer puts asunder.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline RobS

  • Formerly "nothing"
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,594
  • Pavel Florensky and Sergei Bulgakov
  • Faith: Neo-Patristic Synthesis
  • Jurisdiction: The thrilling romance of Holy Orthodoxy
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #118 on: July 14, 2016, 01:43:05 PM »
I am just wondering if maybe some of the biggest debaters of this issue should worry about finding wife #1 rather than trying to figure out how to put asunder an imaginary bride.
They are just bitter about being burned in the past by a woman (or women) and will do anything to project their fantasies of having a submissive chained wife.

They turn that self loathing onto women and get upset whenever they break their archaic out of date social norms. They are anti-feminists through and through, misogynists for sure

I can only hope for the sake of women these men remain forever alone
« Last Edit: July 14, 2016, 01:43:37 PM by nothing »
"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death (μελεπᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν)."

— Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment XI

Modernist thinking and being consists of nothing but uncritical acceptance.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,462
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #119 on: July 14, 2016, 01:54:29 PM »
Quote
So what you're telling me is that in the OC, if three of your spouses die, it's over getting married?

Yes.
Lol! What a stupid rule! and you guys go nutso over "anullments"........funny stuff. ;D


Quote
Been more involved in the upbringing of his children, one hopes.
The only thing that fat slob cared about was getting his.....the originial  medieval  royal gangsta . Stealing, robbing, raping and looting his way to the top while he forced a whole kingdom to "recognize" his bogus marriages in his new bogus religion. with him at the top of course, the new king-pope.

Henry was the perfect example of what happens with all these "divorces" these days with people who just have to have things their way. And take a good look around where it's getting us these days with over half the marriages ending in "divorce".

You can thank your Anglo-Saxon betters  and Protestant "reformers" for that.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,462
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #120 on: July 14, 2016, 01:57:31 PM »
So you can put asunder what God has joined, not only once, but three times.

Nice.

It's better than to come up with some legalistic mumbo jumbo to allow the same practical effects under the banner of "anullment".
It is the priest, the Church, who bonds two people through the Sacrament of Marriage. It is also the Church who divorces them, so I'm not seeing a problem here.
The Church binds, the Church looses.
Maybe over across the Bosphorus that's how it works, but  no along the Tiber.

It is God that has joined the two together, let no MAN put asunder.

I think you all need to research what an anullment is to begin with and what the process is, in obtaining one before you go making a mockery of it.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,462
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #121 on: July 14, 2016, 03:55:48 PM »
Quote
So what you're telling me is that in the OC, if three of your spouses die, it's over getting married?

Yes.
Lol! What a stupid rule! and you guys go nutso over "anullments"........funny stuff. ;D

Why is it a stupid rule?
If three of your spouses really did die for one reason or another, why in the world would you not be permitted to marry again?

I thought the idea was that if your children were older or you were childless you'd go into a monastery and prepare to meet your spouse again when you joined him/her.  If you had children that needed a second parent you could marry again.  By marriage #3 statistics should have done their job and sent you on.
I don't know
and it shows.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline knish

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #122 on: July 16, 2016, 11:55:39 AM »
So you can put asunder what God has joined, not only once, but three times.

Nice.

It's better than to come up with some legalistic mumbo jumbo to allow the same practical effects under the banner of "annulment".
Validity of sacraments is not exclusive to marriage but all.

Quote
It is the priest, the Church, who bonds two people through the Sacrament of Marriage.
In the Byzantine tradition. In the Latin tradition it is the couple who bind each other in marriage not the priest.

Quote
It is also the Church who divorces them, so I'm not seeing a problem here.
The Church binds, the Church looses.

The church was not given authority the break divine law.
Just subvert it via annulments? I'm sorry, but RCs have no leg to stand on in this discussion. You allow divorce, for pretty much any reason, and an unlimited number -- you just call it annulment. I'll call it semantics.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #123 on: July 16, 2016, 06:54:57 PM »
So you can put asunder what God has joined, not only once, but three times.

Nice.

It's better than to come up with some legalistic mumbo jumbo to allow the same practical effects under the banner of "annulment".

Quote
It is the priest, the Church, who bonds two people through the Sacrament of Marriage.
In the Byzantine tradition. In the Latin tradition it is the couple who bind each other in marriage not the priest.

Quote
It is also the Church who divorces them, so I'm not seeing a problem here.
The Church binds, the Church looses.

The church was not given authority the break divine law.
Just subvert it via annulments? I'm sorry, but RCs have no leg to stand on in this discussion. You allow divorce, for pretty much any reason, and an unlimited number -- you just call it annulment. I'll call it semantics.

The Roman church also, for this purpose, ignores marriage covenants not made their way, which means there are plenty of Roman Catholics around who have married one or more times but are waiting for the Right One before getting it done by a priest.
Validity of sacraments is not exclusive to marriage but all.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2016, 06:55:21 PM by Porter ODoran »
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #124 on: July 18, 2016, 01:10:17 PM »
So you can put asunder what God has joined, not only once, but three times.

Nice.

It's better than to come up with some legalistic mumbo jumbo to allow the same practical effects under the banner of "annulment".
Validity of sacraments is not exclusive to marriage but all.

Quote
It is the priest, the Church, who bonds two people through the Sacrament of Marriage.
In the Byzantine tradition. In the Latin tradition it is the couple who bind each other in marriage not the priest.

Quote
It is also the Church who divorces them, so I'm not seeing a problem here.
The Church binds, the Church looses.

The church was not given authority the break divine law.
Just subvert it via annulments? I'm sorry, but RCs have no leg to stand on in this discussion. You allow divorce, for pretty much any reason, and an unlimited number -- you just call it annulment. I'll call it semantics.

All apostolic churches have annulments
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #125 on: July 18, 2016, 01:13:21 PM »
So you can put asunder what God has joined, not only once, but three times.

Nice.

It's better than to come up with some legalistic mumbo jumbo to allow the same practical effects under the banner of "annulment".

Quote
It is the priest, the Church, who bonds two people through the Sacrament of Marriage.
In the Byzantine tradition. In the Latin tradition it is the couple who bind each other in marriage not the priest.

Quote
It is also the Church who divorces them, so I'm not seeing a problem here.
The Church binds, the Church looses.

The church was not given authority the break divine law.
Just subvert it via annulments? I'm sorry, but RCs have no leg to stand on in this discussion. You allow divorce, for pretty much any reason, and an unlimited number -- you just call it annulment. I'll call it semantics.

The Roman church also, for this purpose, ignores marriage covenants not made their way, which means there are plenty of Roman Catholics around who have married one or more times but are waiting for the Right One before getting it done by a priest.
Validity of sacraments is not exclusive to marriage but all.

Not really, it recognises marriages from other denominations. Only civil marriages can be dissolved.
You're telling us about validity of all sacraments? The very people who invented the term to describe sacraments. Anyway we already know what you said. In fact we have commented on the sacraments of the churches for years.

Sorry for the briefness of my reply. As Rohzek knows I have been busy the past month.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline ZealousZeal

  • Cosmic Knowledge Fish
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,980
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #126 on: July 18, 2016, 01:19:49 PM »
So you can put asunder what God has joined, not only once, but three times.

Nice.

It's better than to come up with some legalistic mumbo jumbo to allow the same practical effects under the banner of "annulment".

Quote
It is the priest, the Church, who bonds two people through the Sacrament of Marriage.
In the Byzantine tradition. In the Latin tradition it is the couple who bind each other in marriage not the priest.

Quote
It is also the Church who divorces them, so I'm not seeing a problem here.
The Church binds, the Church looses.

The church was not given authority the break divine law.
Just subvert it via annulments? I'm sorry, but RCs have no leg to stand on in this discussion. You allow divorce, for pretty much any reason, and an unlimited number -- you just call it annulment. I'll call it semantics.

The Roman church also, for this purpose, ignores marriage covenants not made their way, which means there are plenty of Roman Catholics around who have married one or more times but are waiting for the Right One before getting it done by a priest.
Validity of sacraments is not exclusive to marriage but all.

Not really, it recognises marriages from other denominations. Only civil marriages can be dissolved.
You're telling us about validity of all sacraments? The very people who invented the term to describe sacraments. Anyway we already know what you said. In fact we have commented on the sacraments of the churches for years.

Sorry for the briefness of my reply. As Rohzek knows I have been busy the past month.

You misunderstand him. See the bold. Roman Catholics are required by canon law to marry within the Church. Marrying outside the Church makes a marriage invalid due to lack of canonical form. One of the easiest annulments to get, as a matter of fact.
You want your belt to buckle, not your chair.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,530
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #127 on: July 18, 2016, 01:28:47 PM »
All apostolic churches have annulments

The possibility to declare a marriage null rather than to dissolve it through a divorce certainly exists, but it is usually not done because our Church knows how to confer the sacraments. 

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,462
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #128 on: July 18, 2016, 03:15:10 PM »
All apostolic churches have annulments

The possibility to declare a marriage null rather than to dissolve it through a divorce certainly exists, but it is usually not done because our Church knows how to confer the sacraments.
Yes, rather odd how the Vatican's Corban factories worry about how to get it right only after it has failed.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline byhisgrace

  • AOCB
  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,265
  • Memory Eternal to my Younger Brother
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #129 on: July 18, 2016, 10:00:07 PM »
Are the Orthodox Church's rules for annulment similar to that of the Roman Catholic Church? Does the Church grant it when, for example, one of the spouse is not baptized, or if one of them consented out of deep fear, or if one of them did not really intend the marriage to be permanent and child-bearing?

(Before answering, please remember: I am only talking about annulment; not divorce)
« Last Edit: July 18, 2016, 10:10:30 PM by byhisgrace »
Oh Holy Apostle, St. John, pray for us

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,530
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #130 on: July 18, 2016, 10:27:39 PM »
Are the Orthodox Church's rules for annulment similar to that of the Roman Catholic Church? Does the Church grant it when, for example, one of the spouse is not baptized, or if one of them consented out of deep fear, or if one of them did not really intend the marriage to be permanent and child-bearing?

(Before answering, please remember: I am only talking about annulment; not divorce)

If one of the spouses is not baptised, the marriage would not have taken place to begin with. 

To be honest, I'm not familiar with any cases in which an annulment was granted by the Church.  I know of one case in which a civil court declared a marriage null, but I don't know if the Church simply recognised the civil court's decision, granted its own annulment, or granted an ecclesiastical divorce. 

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,462
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #131 on: July 19, 2016, 03:40:13 PM »
Are the Orthodox Church's rules for annulment similar to that of the Roman Catholic Church? Does the Church grant it when, for example, one of the spouse is not baptized, or if one of them consented out of deep fear, or if one of them did not really intend the marriage to be permanent and child-bearing?

(Before answering, please remember: I am only talking about annulment; not divorce)
No. For one, if one spouse is baptized, they are not seen as really married in the first place. The fear one is iffy, the last case would be a divorce, not an annulment (St. John of Kronstadt's wife Elizabeth tried to get one, for instance).
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,495
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #132 on: July 20, 2016, 07:17:24 AM »
All apostolic churches have annulments

The possibility to declare a marriage null rather than to dissolve it through a divorce certainly exists, but it is usually not done because our Church knows how to confer the sacraments.

The church in America does not equal the church in the rest of the world. Never mind that the annulment mess in the west is a novelty and a modern phenomenon  (an abuse I might add). So please spare me this nonsense
« Last Edit: July 20, 2016, 07:20:37 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,530
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #133 on: July 20, 2016, 10:32:06 AM »
All apostolic churches have annulments

The possibility to declare a marriage null rather than to dissolve it through a divorce certainly exists, but it is usually not done because our Church knows how to confer the sacraments.

The church in America does not equal the church in the rest of the world.

I never said that.

Quote
Never mind that the annulment mess in the west is a novelty and a modern phenomenon  (an abuse I might add).

Oh!  This is a new tactic.

Quote
So please spare me this nonsense

Join the Orthodox Church and you can be spared the nonsense of a denomination which can't guarantee its own sacraments. 

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,462
Re: On marrying a second wife
« Reply #134 on: July 20, 2016, 03:01:05 PM »
Since we have been served heapings of Vatican sanctimony, I thought we should have some cooked by one of their chefs, courtesy of Fr. Ambrose (Many Years!).


Those are easy examples and ones that would apply to the west and the east. Let's give up some more common ones used today by the Roman tribunals.

My husband spends too much time at the gym. This proves he did not have the necessary understanding to commit to a true marriage at the time of our marriage.

My wife is excessively devoted to her mother.  This shows she lacked the maturity to make the necessary commitment to the husband at the time of marriage.

No.  It should NEVER be that frivolous.  I have never seen one or worked on one case that was that absurd.

Reasons for annulment listed in Judging Invalidity ©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn

Working out a couple of hours a day in the gym.
Being described as arrogant and selfish with an "I don't need anyone else" attitude.
Saving one's salary in a personal account.
Seeming to be obsessed with one's body (personal appearance).
Ignoring one's parents on one occasion when they came for a visit.
Seeing the world as his apple. (Psychiatric expert's term)
Never being satisfied with a gift given by one's spouse.
Feeling chronically disenfranchised in one's (spousal) relationship.
Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage.
Suffering abandonment issues over a father who died. Protecting herself by putting a hard shell around herself.
Suffering from low self-esteem, self-absorption, and a need for attention.
Lacking emphathy and fearing intimacy.
Comparing oneself to others and always finding them happier. About a month before the wedding he drove his mother to a family reunion, leaving her all alone to make preparations for the wedding.
The psychiatric expert described the respondent as porcupinish. He didn't want people near him; surprises he liked even less. It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman.
The petitioner's mother always resented her. The mother was unreasonably strict and hypercritical.
That book, btw, is THE textbook for canon lawyers.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2016, 03:02:13 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth